STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. RAJENDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 30.9.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh dismissing appeal and affirming the order dated 7.6.2002 of District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and costs, to respondent No. 1-complainant.

(2.) Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that V.K. Arora of M/s. V.K. Industrial Corporation, Ludhiana issued a cheque dated 1.5.1999 for Rs. 75,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1. Cheque was drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Service Branch, Ludhiana, respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 2. Respondent No. 1 was having S.B. A/c No. 24569 with petitioner's branch in Sector 19, Chandigarh. On 12.5.1999, the respondent No. 1 deposited the cheque with the petitioner's said branch for collection and crediting the amount thereof in said S.B. A/c. Petitioner sent the cheque for collection to its branch at Ludhiana on 12.5.1999 itself. On some of the visits to petitioner's said branch thereafter, the respondent No. 1 was told that neither the cheque nor amount thereof had been received from respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 made a complaint in writing to the petitioner to know the fate of the cheque and on 13.7.1999, he was intimated in writing that petitioner had not received any intimation about the cheque from respondent No. 2. It is alleged that petitioner was under a legal obligation to return the said cheque to respondent No. 1 to enable him to avail of legal remedy on the basis thereof, against the drawer. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner, which was disposed of by the District Forum in the manner noticed above.

(3.) We have heard Mr. S.L. Gupta for petitioner and respondent No. 1 who appeared in person. Aforesaid order of District Forum would show that respondent No. 2 contested the petition by filing written version on 8.10.1999 but it was proceeded ex parte later on; but the petitioner did not file written version, was proceeded ex parte; but was allowed to join proceeding at a later stage through the Counsel. Memo of appeal filed before the State Commission as also the grounds taken in present revision petition would reveal that it is not disputed by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 deposited the cheque in question for collection on 12.5.1999. However, the stand taken is that the cheque was sent by the petitioner's branch at Chandigarh to the branch at Ludhiana for purpose of collection and Ludhiana Branch presented the cheque for clearing on 19.5.1999 by respondent No. 2; respondent No. 2 returned the cheque the same day with the memo - insufficient fund, and the cheque along with that memo was sent by the branch at Ludhiana to the branch at Chandigarh by post but it was lost in transit and, thus, could not be returned to respondent No. 1. In para No. 5 of aforesaid order dated 7.6.2002, the District Forum has extracted the plea taken by respondent No. 2 in the written version and the same being material is reproduced below :