CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. BHARAT GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Central Bank of India challenges in this appeal, order of the District Forum, Patiala dated September 20,1995 whereby the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum towards compensation and costs to the complainant Bharat Gupta.

(2.) Unit Trust of India floated a scheme known as 'master Gain - 1992' Applications were invited for sale of share units of Rs.10/- each through Central Bank of India. The complainant applied for 5000 shares of Units on (sic.) and submitted his application to the Central Bank of India, Adalat Bazar, Patiala-opposite party No.2 along with a cheque for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, The Mall, Patiala in favour of U. T. I. The Central Bank of India returned the application along with the memo of Punjab and Sind Bank, The Mall, Patiala dis-honouring the cheque. The complainant thus suffered loss on account of negligence of the Central Bank of India in wrongly sending the cheque for collection to Punjab and Sind Bank, instead of Oriental Bank of Commerce. Since in the meantime, the date for receipt of applications for allotment of shares had expired and the valuation of the shares had doubled, the complainant thus suffered loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. He filed the complaint before the District Forum against Unit Trust of India as well as against Central Bank of India claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the first year and a sum of Rs.2,50,000 /- in the next three years along with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the Central Bank of India inter-alia raising several preliminary objections. Jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain was disputed. The complainant could not be treated as a consumer, as defined under the Act. He had not hired the services of the Bank for consideration. The Bank was merely acting as Collection Agent of UTI. The damages claimed were arbitrary. On merits, it was admitted that the application form along with the cheque was submitted to the Bank. It was acting as an Agent of UTI. The Bank was unable to reply to the allegation of dishonouring of the cheque for want of original cheque and the Memo. The complainant was supposed to check his account before issuing the cheque. It was denied that the value of the shares had jumped to Rs.20/- each. The complainant produced photocopy of the cheque for Rs.50,000/- as Exb. C/1 and memo of Punjab and Sind Bank, returning the cheque, with the endorsement 'not drawn on us' Ex. C/2, application form for purchase of Units and daily quotation list of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. dated November 22,1993 was produced to indicate rise in the UTI Share. It is on the aforesaid material that the District Forum passed the impugned order.