STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by State Bank of India (in short the appellant ) against the order dated 8.8.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the District Forum ) by which the complaint of the complainant (in short respondent No. 1 ) was allowed by the District Forum. The following is the operative part of the order:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Sandeep Kumar Goyal, Proprietor of M/s. Sandeep Medical Agency, Malerkotla had a bank account No. 10731512775 with the appellant - bank and availed the cash credit limit of Rs. 5 lacs on behalf of respondent No. 2. He was the dealer of M/s. Sara Bhai Zydus Pharmaceutical Agencies, Baroda. He engaged Mr. Ajay Sharma as medical representative of abovesaid agency. It was pleaded that he handed over 45 blank signed cheques to Mr. Ajay Sharma to recover routine dues of the abovesaid agency. He had discontinued the dealing with abovesaid agency in the year 2004 and made a number of oral as well as written requests to Mr. Ajay Sharma and M/s. Sara Bhai Agency for return of the unutilized blank cheques but all in vain. He made a request dated 14.6.2006 to the appellant for the stoppage of payment against the unutilized cheques. The allegation of respondent No. 1 was that Mr. Ajay Sharma in connivance with the appellant presented the cheque No. 583194 dated 6.10.2006 for Rs. 3,15,000 and the appellant cleared the cheque by making over and above arrangement of Rs. 3,00,000 towards the account of respondent No. 1. It was pleaded that at that time he had a balance of Rs. 44,087 only in his account out of cash credit limit of Rs. 5,00,000. The appellant had no power to make the over and above arrangement without the consent of respondent No. 1. He had requested the appellant for settlement of Rs. 3,15,000 but the appellant instead of acceding his request issued a notice dated 29.11.2007 under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002. This was deficiency on the part of the appellant and respondent No. 1 prayed that the appellant may be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs. 3,15,000 and refund the same to respondent No. 1, if the same was deposited and also demanded Rs. 55,000 as compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

(3.) THE appellant replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction but admitted the account No. 10731512775 and cash credit limit of Rs. 5,00,000 of respondent No. 1 but it was pleaded that the said facility was availed for commercial purpose. It was denied that respondent No. 1 had given blank signed cheques to Mr. Ajay Sharma. It was also denied that respondent No. 1 had given any intimation dated 14.6.2006 regarding stoppage of the payment of cheques. It was denied that Mr. Ajay Sharma presented cheque No. 583194 dated 6.10.2006 for Rs. 3,15,000 with the connivance of the appellant bank. It was pleaded that in cash credit limit cases, the cheques even exceeding the limit of cash credit are paid by the bank on the assurance of the account holder through telephone to clear the cheque on his promise to deposit the amount to the extent of exceeding the cash credit limit. It was also pleaded that on earlier many occasions the appellant cleared the cheques exceeding the cash credit limit for which respondent No. 1 never raised any objection.