P S SAWHNEY Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri P.S. Sawhney, the complainant, who is an artist, had visited Delhi with his arte-facts for display in the India International Trade Fair. He had given the job of supplying the glass plate and the etching of art work on it to M/s. Ram Kumar Glass Suppliers, New Delhi, by making an advance of Rs. 1,000. After returning to Chandigarh he sent a cheque for Rs. 1,000 to OP No. 2 towards the balance amount drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh. The complainant had to present this art work to a VVIP. As there was no response from OP No. 2, he was left with no alternative but to personally visit OP No. 2 at Delhi to collect the same by spending Rs. 2,000 on his trip. He went to Delhi to collect the same but he found the job incomplete. OP No. 2 returned the cheque of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant by informing him that the cheque has been dishonoured by M/s. Canara Bank - OP No. 1 and hence, OP No. 2 refused to carry out the work. On perusal of the refused cheque it was revealed that OP No. 1 sent the cheque for collection to Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, instead of Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh.

(2.) Aggrieved by the action of Canara Bank-OP No. 1, he filed a complaint before the District Forum- II, Chandigarh. The District Forum held that as the complainant had not hired the services of OP No. 1 he is not a consumer qua OP No. 1. Hence, the complaint against OP No. 1 is not maintainable. However, the District Forum directed the OP No. 2 to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the complainant with Rs.1000 as costs of litigation. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, Chandigarh, which confirmed the order of the District Forum. Hence, the complainant has filed this Revision before us.

(3.) The petitioner submitted that the impugned cheque was presented by OP No. 1 - Canara Bank to a wrong branch of the Punjab National Bank, and this per se is deficiency in service of OP No. 1. The said deficiency has been compounded by dishonouring the impugned cheque of the petitioner by the concerned bank, in spite of having adequate and sufficient funds being available in his account. This could have resulted in an action against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner availed the services of OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 as OP No. 2 submitted the impugned cheque to the OP No.1 for encashment.