LAWS(NCD)-2015-8-221

AJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. CANARA BANK

Decided On August 18, 2015
AJAY KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
CANARA BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, "the State Commission") dated 17.3.2015 in first appeal No.187/2014 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Kaimur, Bhabhua, set aside the order and dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of trading in the name and style of Maa Gayatri Traders. He had opened a current account in respect of said business with the opposite party bank. The bank had extended cash credit facility against the said account. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited cheque No.151302 for Rs.2,22,750/-, cheque No.151305 for Rs.5,24,700/- and cheque No.389329 for Rs.9,96,571/- issued in favour of his firm by purchasers of rice for collection. Two cheques were drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce and the third cheque was drawn on Vijaya Bank. The amount of said cheques was not credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant, therefore, checked with the bank and no satisfactory answer was given to him. Claiming this to be deficiency in service complainant filed a consumer complaint in the concerned District Forum.

(3.) The opposite party bank in the written statement claimed that the said cheques were sent for collection at Varanasi branch of the bank. The concerned banks did not honour the cheques because of insufficient funds. The dishonoured cheques were, therefore, transmitted by the Varanasi bank to the opposite party bank but the cheques were lost in the postal transit. The opposite party, thus, pleaded that the cheques have lost due to deficiency on the part of the postal department and, therefore, the opposite party cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service. It was also pleaded that the complainant is a borrower of OP bank and, therefore, he cannot be termed as a consumer qua the bank.