Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 129 (UTT)

SHAKUNTALA DEVI v. UTI BANK LTD.

2011-02-28

C.C.PANT, KUSUM LATA SHARMA

body2011
ORDER (Per : C.C. Pant, Member) This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.07.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 47 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground that the same is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Smt. Shakuntala Devi is an account holder of Central Bank of India, Roorkee – opposite party No. 2. She issued a cheque No. 045976 dated 06.08.2005 for sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of her brother Sh. J.K. Sisodia. Since Sh. J.K. Sisodia had a bank account with UTI Bank Ltd. in Surat, the complainant asked her son to deposit the said cheque in UTI Bank Ltd., Branch Roorkee – opposite party No. 1. The son of the complainant deposited the cheque on 06.08.2005 in the drop-in box kept in the ATM Cell. However, the amount of the cheque was not transferred to Sh. Sisodia’s account and instead, someone had withdrawn the amount fraudulently from the Central Bank of India. The complainant has alleged that some employee of the UTI Bank Ltd., Roorkee, who had collected the cheques from the drop-in box, had fraudulently withdrawn the amount instead of sending the cheque for clearance. When the opposite parties failed to take any action in this matter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. The District Forum vide its order dated 19.07.2007 dismissed the consumer complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. So far as the respondent No. 2 – opposite party No. 2 is concerned, the complainant – appellant has not made any allegation against it. The grievance of the complainant is mainly against the opposite party No. 1 – respondent No. 1 and the relief has also been sought against it. The main contention of the opposite party No. 1 is that the complainant is not a consumer of UTI Bank Ltd. and this contention is tenable because the complainant is not an account holder of the UTI Bank Ltd. For this reason, the District Forum has rightly held that the consumer complaint is not maintainable. The main contention of the opposite party No. 1 is that the complainant is not a consumer of UTI Bank Ltd. and this contention is tenable because the complainant is not an account holder of the UTI Bank Ltd. For this reason, the District Forum has rightly held that the consumer complaint is not maintainable. Further, we also find that the cheque issued by the complainant was a bearer cheque. To deposit such a cheque in a drop-in box and that too in an ATM Cell,, is like to place the money on the roadside with every chance of its being lost. It is solely the fault of the complainant that she did not take adequate precautions in issuing the cheque. She did not cross the cheque. Since she knew the bank account number of her brother, it would have been more secure if she would have mentioned the account number in the cheque. The counterfoil of the pay-in-slip (Paper No. 23) also reveals that no details of the cheque are given in it. The allegation that some official of the UTI Bank Ltd., who had collected the cheques from the drop-in box, had fraudulently withdrawn the amount of the cheque, is not substantiated with some conclusive evidence. It is true that someone got the bearer cheque encashed but that “someone” may also be the son of the complainant. This possibility can not be ruled out. Therefore, the respondents are not at all at fault if someone had got the cheque encashed. If someone is at fault, it is the complainant herself and none else. The District Forum’s order is well discussed one on the facts of the case as well as on the legal aspects of the case. 5. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.