Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 390 (CHH)

BRANCH MANAGER, SBI v. CHANDRIKA PRASAD KUSHWAHA

2006-08-02

R.S.AWASTHI, VEENA MISRA

body2006
ORDER Veena Misra, Member: 1. This appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 18.04.2006, passed in complaint No.29/ 2003 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as the "District Forum" for short) whereby the complaint was allowed by the District Forum. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the OPS have preferred this appeal. 2. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as per averments in the complaint the complainant has an account No.01190006900 with the OP bank. On 2.7.2002 the complainant had drawn a self cheque bearing No.751154 for a sum of Rs.7,000/- for domestic expenses and had handed over the same to his son Rajnikant. The complainant was posted at Bemetara, so he went to attend to his duties. On 3.07.2002 the aforesaid cheque was lost somewhere and as it could not be found despite efforts, the wife and daughter of the complainant approached the Bank and intimated the employees/offices in this regard and requested for stopping payment of the said cheque. As per averments the employees of the bank told them that the payment of cheque could be stopped only at the request of the account holder. Next day it was learnt that the said cheque was encashed after making alteration in the amount. It is averred in the complaint that there was a sum of Rs. 68,504.79 in the account of the complainant. Someone deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- and then withdrew a sum of Rs.70,000/- after making alteration in the amount mentioned in the cheque. The complaint averred that the Bank is liable for deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum for being compensated for the loss, as detailed in the complaint, suffered by him due to deficiency in service on part of the Bank. 3. The OP/respondent Bank averred in the written version that there was no negligence/deficiency on part of any employee of the Bank. It is averred in that the complainant's wife or daughter neither made any complaint to the Bank on 3.07.2002 nor gave any application. Had they given an application, the Bank would definitely taken necessary action immediately. It is averred in the written version that on previous occasions also the complainant had drawn amount by self cheque. It is averred in that the complainant's wife or daughter neither made any complaint to the Bank on 3.07.2002 nor gave any application. Had they given an application, the Bank would definitely taken necessary action immediately. It is averred in the written version that on previous occasions also the complainant had drawn amount by self cheque. On presentation of the cheque, the Bank has to verify the signatures and the date and if prima facie there appears to be no mistake, the payment of the cheque is not stopped. It is further averred in the written version that on the back side of the cheque also the complainant had put two signatures, hence there was no reason for slopping payment. It is further averred that it is a complicated matter hence the Forum has no jurisdiction. The OP prayed for dismissal of complaint. 4. The learned District Forum felt convinced by the version of the complainant and allowed the complaint. 5. Final arguments heard and record perused. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order and submitted that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. He submitted that the learned District Forum erred in holding the OPs deficient in service. He further submitted that the learned District Forum below failed to appreciate the tact that the complainant had put two signatures at the back of the cheque in acceptance of the sum, the date was clearly mentioned hence the payment could not be stopped. The counsel for appellant further submitted that the learned District Forum below has erred in holding that there was overwriting on the cheque. He further submitted that the District Forum has wrongly held that the wife and daughter of the complainant had given intimation that cheque No. 751154 for a sum of Rs.7,000/- was lost and had requested for not making payment of the same. He further submitted that the wife and son of the complainant had approached the bank with an application on 4.7.2002 but no cheque number was mentioned in the said cheque and the amount of cheque was also Rs.70,000/- as against Rs.7,000/-. He further submitted that the wife and son of the complainant had approached the bank with an application on 4.7.2002 but no cheque number was mentioned in the said cheque and the amount of cheque was also Rs.70,000/- as against Rs.7,000/-. He further submitted that the learned District Forum below has erred in holding that since the amount to be left in the account was less than the minimum balance it was obligatory for the bank to contact the account holder prior to making payment. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the order of the District Forum be set aside. 6. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that it is a reasoned order and is just and proper and as such there is no need for any interference with the order as passed by the District Forum. 7. On perusal of complaint it is observed that the complainant has in Para 7 of the complaint made allegations of forgery and cheating. Such allegations require detailed investigation which is not possible in summary proceeding before the Consumer Forum. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. This appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However the complainant shall be entitled to avail any other remedy that may be available to him. Appeal Allowed.