ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. PROFESSIONAL COURIERS SANGUNTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we propose to dispose above noted three revision petitions arising out the common order of the State Commission dated 21.11.2011.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts for disposal of the above revision petitions are that Shri R.Subramaniam, respondent no.1 in RP No. 1145 / 12 filed consumer complaint number 14 of 2004 before District Consumer Forum Karur claiming that he was having Current Account No. 109 in the name of his proprietorship concern M/s R.S.Fabs with Oriental Bank of Commerce (OP No.1 in the complaint). He deposited one cheque dated 12.01.2004 for Rs.5,00,000/- issued in his favour by M/s Paramount Impex Private Limited Panipat with the petitioner / bank for collection of the amount from the drawee bank, namely Bank of India Panipat ( OP No.2) in the complaint. The petitioner ( OP No.1) failed to credit the amount of the cheque in his current account nor dishonoured cheque was returned to him. Claiming this to be deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant preferred consumer complaint against the petitioner M/s Bank of India Panipat. Subsequently, M/s Professional Couriers through whom OP No.1 had claimed to have signed the cheque to its local branch for collection of the amount from Bank of India G.T. Road, Panipat ( OP No.2) was also impleaded as opposite party no.3. The petitioner / OP No.1 denied deficiency of service on its part by claiming that it had sent the aforesaid cheque to its local branch at Panipat for collection of amount from the Bank of India Panipat through M/s Professional Couriers ( OP No.3). The OP No.3 failed to deliver the aforesaid cheque at the local branch of the petitioner / Bank which prevented the petitioner from crediting the amount of cheque in the account of the complainant as the said amount was not received from the second opposite party, namely, Bank of India, Panipat.

(3.) Bank of India Panipat ( OP No.2) in its written version claimed that the complaint against him is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between him and the complainant.