PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. GOYAL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners.

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained a cash credit limit from the petitioner Bank of Rs. 1 Lakh on 10.10.1998, a cheque amounting to Rs. 3,048/- issued by the complainant was not honoured by the petitioner Bank on the plea "exceeds arrangements". On the matter being taken up by the complainant with the petitioner Bank, he was told that his account has become irregular as Stock Statement for the month of September due on 7th October, 1998 has not been received. Not being satisfied with the explanation and alleging that there were sufficient funds in his account a complaint came to be filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties passed a detailed order allowing the complaint and holding the petitioner deficient in service and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was also dismissed on the ground that stock was verified by the Bank on 7/8th October, 1998, hence reducing the cash credit limit for not supplying the Stock Statement is not sustainable; hence the revision petition.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The whole controversy revolves around one point. The Status of Stock/Stock verification early October, 1998. The learned Counsel made several points on this being not a consumer dispute, that there was violation of the terms of cash credit limit Agreement by the complainant that there was no necessity for communicating the reduction of limit to Rs. 1,000/- from Rs. 1 lakh, to this complainant and others. We have no hesitation in stating that the petitioner was rendering service to the complainant, as held by the State Commission. Main point is that neither before the District Forum, nor before the State Commission, nor for that matter before us, the petitioner has rebutted or refuted the constant reference of the complainant that stock verification was done by the petitioner Bank on 7/8.10.1998. Once this is not rebutted, then the fact remains that Bank did verify the stocks on these dates. If this was so then the plea of the petitioner Bank loses its value, thus, losing the very ground to reduce the cash credit limit, leading to dishonouring of the cheque. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that there was no stock verification on 7/8th October, 1998 in the absence of which whole case of the petitioner falls like nine-pins. We see no merit in the petition filed before us and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.