Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op.Bank Ltd. Amco House
This is a discussion on Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op.Bank Ltd. Amco House within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI Date of filing : 16/03/2001 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 114 OF 2001 Date of ...
- 09-01-2009, 02:33 PM #1
Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op.Bank Ltd. Amco House
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
Date of filing : 16/03/2001
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 114 OF 2001 Date of order : 16/06/2009
M/s.Precision Steel & Tubes
At E-72, Bina Apartments,
Sir M.V. Road, Andheri (E),
Mumbai – 400 069. … Complainant
1. The Chairman
Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op.Bank Ltd.
Amco House, Near Stadium Circle,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380 009.
2. Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op.Bank Ltd.
126, Narayan Dhuru Street,
Nagdevi Branch, Mumbai-400 003. … Opposite Parties
Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
Present: Mr.P.R. Dhruv, Partner of the complainant.
Mr.Ashok Shah, Manager of the O.P.
- : ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
It is the case of the complainant, a registered partnership firm that out of business dealing, it had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.2,61,271/- dated 12/01/1993 bearing No.571917 in favour of M/s.Rahul Steel Tubes. Consequent to it by letter dated 21/06/1993 it had informed the O.P./Bank to stop payment thereof. However, when cheque was actually presented, it was not honoured. But, instead of mentioning the reason of stop payment, O.P. returned the cheque as per their memo dated 12/07/1993 with endorsement ‘present again’. Cheque was presented again, but it was again dishonoured and returned with endorsement, “funds expected please present again”. It is the grievance of the complainant that at the first instance, the cheque which ought to have dishonoured was to be returned with endorsement ‘stop payment’ and at the second instance the cheque for which stop payment instructions were issued was to be treated as a ‘stale cheque’ when re-presented on second occasion. Bank failed to give appropriate service accordingly and thus guilty for deficiency in service.
It is further contended on behalf of complainant that dishonour of cheque laid to criminal prosecution against it bearing criminal case No.110/S of 1993 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It is further claimed that it was forced to compound offence by paying Rs.2 Lakhs and also incurred expenses of Rs.50,000/- in defending the prosecution. Holding O.P./Bank responsible for the same, he claimed compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs on that count. In addition to amount of Rs.2 Lakhs paid to M/s.Rahul Steel Tubes for composition of criminal offence and also claimed Rs.27,000/- by way of interest on Rs.2 Lakhs paid as above and Rs.30,000/- being cost of the complaint, total amounting to Rs.6,07,000/- and filed consumer complaint on 16/03/2001.
Complaint is opposed by O.P./Bank denying that there is any cause of action against them. They denied their liability on account of alleged deficiency in service and particularly for criminal prosecution faced by the complainant as alleged. A claim is denied in toto.
Mr.P.R. Dhruv, Partner of complainant present in person and Mr.Ashok Shah, Manager of O.P./Bank present. Written notes of arguments are already filed by both parties. No additional submissions are made. Perused the record.
There is hardly any evidence worth mention adduced on behalf of both the parties as per provisions of Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’ for brevity). However, relevant facts which emerged as undisputed facts tell us that cheque was not honoured at all by O.P./Bank and said result/consequences were as desired by the complainant itself consequent to ‘stop payment’ instructions given by it. Mere mentioning a wrong reason instead of ‘stop payment’ by the drawer will not give any ground or actionable claim on account of deficiency in service to the complainant. Prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which the complainant had to face, was on account of dishonour of the cheque and not on account of any wrong reason for dishonour of the cheque by the O.P./Bank. Consumer complaint would lie relating to reliefs which could be granted under Section 14 of the Act. Alleged claims based upon criminal prosecution, payment of composition fee of Rs.2 Lakhs, interest thereon, etc. are the claims certainly which will not fall within the purview of Consumer Fora. As earlier observed, there is no actionable deficiency in service as such for mentioning a wrong reason for dishonour of cheque. Therefore, complainant miserably failed to establish that there was deficiency in service and for which he should be compensated under the Act.
Further, the incident of dishonour of cheque occurred in the year 1993 and for which a consumer complaint filed in the year 2001 would not lie. It is a stale action.
For the reasons stated above, we find complainant has miserably failed to establish his claim, which could be considered and granted by the Consumer Fora and further no such action would lie being a stale action barred by limitation. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Complaint stands dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
2. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (S.R. Khanzode)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-06-2009, 06:03 PM
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-05-2009, 10:11 PM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 11:16 PM
- By vikkas_16 in forum Bank AccountReplies: 1Last Post: 07-19-2009, 09:44 PM