BISAMBHAR LAL SABOO Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 4.2.2000, passed in Complaint No. 70/1999 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) whereby the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the complainant has preferred this appeal. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant has an account from the year 1996 with the opposite party Bank and has been availing cheque facility. It is averred in the complaint that while opening the aforesaid account the complainant had told the Bank authorities that the main purpose for opening the said account was that the amount could be easily transferred to the Head Office of the complainant s proprietorship concern at Cuttack by getting the drafts prepared by the opposite party. It is further averred that the opposite party had assured the complainant that the draft will be prepared only in the name of the person whose name will be mentioned in the cheque and had further assured that only one draft will be prepared on the basis of one cheque. The complainant, taking necessary precautions as per the aforesaid assurance being given by the Bank, kept signed cheques in its Branch Office for being used from time to time. Some of the aforesaid cheques, as detailed in the complaint were presented before the opposite party, Bank, on different dates, after filling the date and the amount. However, the Bank acted against the assurance given to the complainant and had prepared two drafts against each of the said four cheques, one in the name of the complainant and the other in the name of some G.D. Jha, contrary to the instructions of the complainant. It is further averred that as per common banking rules the amount is to be given to the person mentioned on the cheque itself and accordingly the drafts were to be prepared in the name of the person mentioned on the cheque and none else. It is alleged that the Bank acted against the settled rules of practice thereby causing huge financial loss to the complainant and this act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. On being contacted the opposite party failed to co -operate, hence the complaint was filed before the District Forum.

(3.) THE opposite party resisted the complaint and had denied all material allegations, including that of deficiency in service, made in the complaint. It was averred in the written version that the complainant should have taken action against his own agent/employee, G.D. Jha who used to look after the work of the Raipur Branch of the complainant but as the said person is absconding, the complainant has brought complaint against the Bank. It was further averred in the written version that the complainant kept few cheques duly filled in his own handwriting and signed by the proprietor to be used by his counter part at Raipur, namely G.D. Jha, as and when necessary. The matter inscribed on the cheque was "Yourself" also indicating" Expo Steel Corporation. It is further averred in the written version that G.D. Jha used to come to the Bank to transact business on behalf of the complainant. The said G.D. Jha lodged the said cheques on different dates, for the amount mentioned in the cheques and required the Bank to prepare drafts separately by transfer from the current account of the complainant. Since the said person had always been coming to the Bank and used to represent the complainant with regard to filing the application for preparation of drafts the opposite party Bank had prepared the drafts as required by the representative/agent of the complainant. It was further averred that the Bank had no inkling that the said agent would play fraud as to dupe the complainant himself. The opposite party had also denied the allegations of deficiency in service and had also averred that, in view of the fact that being a case of fraud and cheating and criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation practised by the agent; the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum.