SIBA NARAYAN SENAPATI Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is by the unsuccessful complainant, who, after dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum, Puri, has approached this Forum challenging the order dated 30.11.2006 passed in C.D. Case No. 2003 of 2005. The District Forum, while dismissing the consumer complaint of the complainant, has directed the complainant to pay a cost of Rs. 500 to be paid to the opposite party -United Commercial Bank within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) THE appellant as the complainant filed the afore -mentioned consumer complaint before the District Forum, Puri stating therein that he has got a bank account vide No. PL -109 with the opposite party -Bank, i.e., United Commercial Bank, Temple Extension Counter, beside Lord Jagannath Temple, Puri. On 13.9.2005 the complainant issued a cheque to the opposite party to make payment, but the opposite party refused to pay the same with the plea of insufficient fund in the account, though there was sufficient fund, and deducted Rs. 50 towards service charges. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party, who only assured that this type of mistake would not occur in future. It is alleged in the complaint that on 8.11.2005, the opposite party made payment of an amount of Rs. 972.60 against a time -barred cheque bearing number 923046, for which the complainant sustained loss. On 28.11.2005, the opposite party dishonoured another cheque with the previous reason of insufficient fund, though there was sufficient amount in the account of the complainant. On the same day, payment of a cheque was made, which was to be presented on the next date, i.e., 29.11.2005. It is further stated that due to laches of the opposite party, the complainant sustained great loss and the opposite party committed offence under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For that, the complainant came with the complaint to the Consumer Forum at Puri with a prayer for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000, interest towards private loan of Rs. 5,000 and cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000.

(3.) THE opposite party -Bank through its Counsel entered appearance and filed written version raising the question of maintainability of the complaint. It is admitted that the complainant has got an account bearing number PL -109 with the opposite party -Bank. But, it does not suo motu give coverage to the complainant to be a consumer without any negligence or deficiency in rendering service is shown or proved. In the written version, it is specifically stated that the cheque No. 816185 dated 13.9.2005 for Rs. 3,484 was presented through clearing and it was returned due to insufficiency of fund. The party deposited Rs. 3,000 on 13.9.2005 after return of the cheque. Since at the time of presentation of the cheque, there was insufficient fund in the account of the complainant, the opposite party -Bank had no other option but to return the cheque with endorsement "insufficient fund". Just after the cheque was returned, the party deposited Rs. 3,000 and by doing so the complainant cannot claim the privilege of saying that he had sufficient fund in his account to honour the cheque and he cannot take advantage of his own fault. It is further stated in the written version that the complainant has never brought this fact to the notice of the opposite party and the opposite party has never assured the complainant not to commit such type of mistake in future. The deduction of Rs. 50 from the account of the complainant is as per the banking rules and no fault can be found with the opposite party in that regard. It is also averred that the cheque bearing number 923046 was issued on 29.8.2005 for Rs. 972.60, which was paid to the payee Prakash Agency on 8.11.2005, i.e., within the validity period of six months and the allegation of the complainant regarding payment of a time -barred cheque does not at all arise. Similarly, it is stated that cheque No. 847547 dated 20.11.2005 was paid across the counter, when it was presented for payment on 28.11.2005, to the bearer and there is absolutely no fault in the matter of presentation and payment. The opposite party -Bank has acted as per the banking norms and the question of sustaining loss by the complainant does not at all arise. It has been specifically pleaded that the complainant has falsely filed this case, which is apparent on record, and as such the complaint should be dismissed with exemplary cost.