BANK OF BARODA Vs. PRAKASH J JHAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.1996 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City in Complaint No.1005 of 1994. The impugned order reads as under : "the complaint against the opponent No.2 is hereby dismissed. However, the complaint against the opponent No.1 is allowed and the opponent No.1 is directed to pay the complainant No.2 the sum of Rs.9,100/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the complaint, till the payment is made and to also pay Rs.400/- as cost. The opponent No.1 to comply with this order within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. "

(2.) The complainants went before the learned City Forum with the case that Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. , being opponent No.2 issued a letter in November, 1993 for the offer of secured redeemable debentures @ 170/- against the original value of Rs.270/- as a matter of right on account of the fact that such offer was made to a registered share holder. The offer was accompanied with one detachable warrant which could be exercised for getting allotment of 5 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.38/- per share on right basis. Accordingly complainant No.2 was entitled to get 10 bonds. She applied for the same and sent the cheque issued by complainant No.1 from his account for the sum of Rs.1,000/-. It was the case of the complainant that though there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant No.1, the first opponent Bank being the appellant herein dishonoured the cheque. According to the complainant, it was an act of negligence on the part of the concerned Bank. When the complainant approached the higher Authority of the Bank, the Bank agreed to issue demand draft in the name of opponent No.2 Company. However, the Bank did not send application alongwith demand draft and the result was that opponent No.2 returned the demand draft with the application on the ground that time to apply for the debentures had expired long before. This resulted into loss to the complainant on account of negligence on the part of the opponent No.1 Bank. The complainants, therefore, prayed for loss of Rs.13,300/- on account of deficiency in service as aforesaid on the part of the first opponent Bank.

(3.) The first opponent Bank resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that complainant No.2 could not be said to be a consumer and complainant No.1 did not suffer any loss, when the cheque was returned with endorsement 'refer to drawer' as 'the signature of the drawer differed' and that it was on account of complainant No.1's default that the cheque was dishonoured on account of variation in the signature. It was the case of the opponent No.1 that demand draft was issued out of grace. However, since the issue of debentures was closed on 7.1.1994, the application and the demand draft were not accepted by the Company. Under such circumstances, the opponent No.1 Bank asserted that there was no deficiency in service rendered by the opponent No.1 Bank. Upon hearing of the matter, the learned City Forum came to the conclusion that although there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant No.1, the cheque was returned and the cause of return of the cheque being variation/difference in signature of the drawer would hardly matter. Dealing with other contentions with regard to whether complainant No.2 could be said to be consumer, the learned City Forum held that she could be said to be a beneficiary of the banking services through medium of cheque issued by complainant No.1. The learned City Forum accordingly passed the aforesaid order which has been the subject matter of this appeal.