STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BANSAL HARDWARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the case which were before the Fora below and also this Commission lie in very narrow compass which need to be noticed with brevity. A cheque for Rs. 50,000/ - to be drawn on State Bank of India, Summer Hill Branch, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh was issued by one Jarnail Singh in favour of M/s. Bansal Hardware, through its proprietor Mr. Anil Gupta on 30.7.2007. The cheque in question presented by drawee to State Bank of India, Branch Boileau Ganj, Shimla for collection from State Bank of India, Summer Hill Branch, Shimla where said Jarnail Singh held account, State Bank of India, Branch Boileau Ganj, Shimla accordingly sent said cheque to State Bank of India, Summer Hill Branch for collection.

(2.) What happened thereafter is quite interesting which raised the controversy and made issue debatable. It seems that while cheque in question was sent by State Bank of India, Branch Boileau Ganj, Shimla to State Bank of India, Branch Summer Hill, Shimla for collection, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - was credited by State Bank of India, Boileau Ganj, Branch, Shimla in the account of M/s. Bansal Hardware. Since the cheque allegedly bore cuttings over it and also that the cheque pertained to old series, that was returned by State Bank of India, Branch Summer Hill, Shimla to State Bank of India, Branch Boileau Ganj, Shimla, which on receipt of the cheque debited a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - in the account of the firm. State Bank of India, Branch Boileau Ganj, Shimla, while crediting sum of Rs. 50,000/ - to the account, for which cheque has been issued by Jarnail Singh, also made corresponding entries in the pass book of the firm. Shortly after the firm came to know about debit of Rs. 50,000/ - in the account, without notice to them, took recourse to legal remedy available to them and made both the Branches of State Bank of India answerable for deficiency in service before the District Consumer Forum.

(3.) It seems that the matter at some point of time came to be agitated also before the Ombudsman '' Bank but we have not been apprised about the outcome of the proceedings pending before the said authority. Be that as it may, that hardly makes any difference, as it was still open to the aggrieved consumer to avail remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, this being an additional remedy and even no parallel proceeding would oust its jurisdiction.