MANOJ KHURANA Vs. RAJENDER BANCHOR & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision filed against the order dated 6.9.2006 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, the petitioner seeks enhancement of compensation beyond Rs. 5,000 as granted by the State Commission against respondent No. 2.

(2.) IN nutshell, facts giving rise to this revision are these. Petitioner/complainant was issued four cheques all dated 10.10.2003 for a total amount of Rs. 50,000 by respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1. These cheques were drawn on Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Durg. Cheques were deposited for collection in his account by the petitioner with respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 bank on 31.3.2004. On 26.4.2004, cheques were returned with the note 'those were not produced within due date'. Alleging deficiency in service the petitioner filed complaint claiming amount of Rs. 61,000 including amount of the cheques in question of Rs. 50,000. Complaint was contested by filing separate written versions by both the respondents. Respondent No. 1 alleged that he had taken loan from one Pappu Saluja and in lieu thereof Pappu Saluja obtained signatures from him. Though the loan was returned to Pappu Saluja but he had not returned the cheques in question. In the written version, respondent No. 2 bank admitted of having received the cheques in question on 31.3.2004. However, it was alleged that due to closing there was heavy work and the cheques, therefore, could be sent to Rajanandgaon Gramin Bank, Durg for collection on 7.4.2004. Bank returned the cheque on 13.4.2004 as those were not presented within six months of their issue. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on its part as alleged. The District Forum dismissed the complaint by the order dated 7.4.2006. Appeal against District Forum's order filed by the petitioner was allowed holding respondent No. 2 bank deficient in service. The bank was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation. Appeal against respondent No. 1 was dismissed with compensation of Rs. 3,000 and cost to respondent No. 1.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Ashutosh Sharma for petitioner.