PARVEEN KUMAR GOYAL Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.11.2015 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 416 of 2013, Praveen Kumar Goyal vs. State Bank of Patiala & Ors. by which, appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was maintaining his Saving Bank Account No. 55041526027 with State Bank of Patiala, Chowk Fort Branch, Patiala and he was also maintaining the cash credit limit of Rs. 8 lacs having A/c No. 65033660206 in the name of his proprietor firm M/s Goyal Traders, Patiala with the same branch and he had been regularly depositing the money in his Cash Credit Limit Account. His business was not running well as expected, even then he deposited the dues in time. The complainant deposited two cheques No. 940263 and 940264 dated 28.1.2010 of Rs. 3 lacs each in his above said saving bank account drawn on SBI, 17 -B, Branch, Chandigarh received from his client. OP No. 3/Respondent No.3 sent both the cheques to State Bank of India, Chandigarh through OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2, i.e. Service Branch of OP No. 3 at Chandigarh. When he inquired about the non -deposit of the amount in his account, OP No. 3 informed that they were waiting and advised to wait for some more time but no satisfactory reply was given. Then he issued the reminder. Then he insisted that either the cheques be returned or the amount be deposited in his account. After repeated requests of the complainant, OP No. 3 vide its letter dated 12.4.2010 intimated that both the cheques sent to their service branch SBOI, Sector 17 -B, Chandigarh were returned unpaid but not received by them and had lost in transit. OP No. 3 supplied a copy of the Fax received by them in proof of the cheques received at the branch delivered by the Courier sent by SBOP to OP No. 2, which showed malafide intentions on the part of Ops by adopting unfair means. The complainant was left with no remedy but to file a complaint against the drawer under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When he contacted his lawyer, he opined that to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the original unpaid cheques and objection memos in original were required by the Court, therefore, the complainant could not file the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and even he could not file a suit against the drawer. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 resisted complaint, admitted that the complainant was having saving bank account as well as Cash Credit limit. It was also admitted that the complainant had presented two cheques of Rs. 3 lacs each in his saving bank account. A letter dated 12.4.2010 was written by these OPs to the complainant vide which he was informed that the cheques have been dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds as informed by their service branch but the parcel containing the cheques was misplaced at the end of Flight Courier. Complainant has a legal right to recover the said amount in case it was due against the drawer by approaching the appropriate Court having the jurisdiction. False allegations were levelled against the officials of the Bank. It was further reiterated that the Banking Ombudsman had already granted the relief to the complainant. Denying any deficiency on their part prayed for dismissal of complaint.

(3.) Opposite party No. 4 remained ex -parte before learned District Forum. Opposite party No.5 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands, so complaint was not maintainable. It was further submitted that complainant had already filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is pending before the Court, so prayed for dismissal of complaint.