Date of Filing:03.12.2021

Date of Disposal:21.03.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.S.NOOLA,

MEMBER

1. The complainant submitted their complaint in accordance with Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. The complainant requests that this Commission accept the complaint and order the opposing parties to jointly and severely pay Rs.5,11,884/- plus 18% interest till the day of realization, as well as to pay further orders in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the above matter.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

The complainant asserts that it is a registered firm operating under the name and style of M/s. Pragati computers and as a fair name in relation to computer hardware and software, and that it has been in the said business for the past two decades.

3. The complainant supplied certain items to one of its clients, M/s Navrang computers, and the said person offered a cheque in the amount of Rs.5,11,884/- issued in the name of M/s Pragathi Computers in favour of the complainant. The complainant has a current account with the OP-1, and the OP-2 is the Managing Director of the OP-1 and is in control of the day-to-day operations of the OP-1. The complainant has paid the  aforementioned cheque with the OP-1 in order to get a valid legal discharge of M/s Navrang computers. The complainant was stunned and surprised to discover that their current account in OP-1 bank is neither privy to such credit, nor is the complainant in receipt of the cheque. In order to find out the status of the cheque, the complainant wrote emails to the OP, for which the OP-1 took an evasive and untenable stance. The complainant alleges that the OP-1 misplaced the cheque and memo, and that such carelessness is a criminal breach of trust, punishable under sections 405, 406, 415, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

4. After service of notice, OPs appeared through their counsel, but they did not submit their version on time.

5. The partner of complainant filed his Chief-examination affidavit and marked documents C1 to C9.

6. The complainant and OPs have filed their respective  written arguments.  In the written argument it is said that the complainant was holding an account with the opposite parties Bank and had deposited an ICICI bank cheque on 23/8/2021. The check was issued by the Navrang computers, and because there was insufficient funds, it was dishonoured. It states that despite their best efforts, they were unable to locate the cheque and thus notified the complainant on 08-09-2021 and also suggested that they would issue the dishonour memo and also depose before any Court regarding the misplacement of the cheque, but the complainant was unwilling to accept the same. The complainant has suffered no pecuniary loss, according to the OP, because the remedy of recovery against the check's issuer is not extinguished under civil statutes, and the bank is willing to grant an endorsement of the relevant cheque being dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

7.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

8. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1          :       Negative

Point No.2          :       As per final order

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:- The complainant supplied some goods to one of its clients, M/s Navrang computers, and the latter offered the complainant a cheque in the amount of Rs.5,11,884/- issued in the name of M/s Pragathi computers in favour of the complainant, which was lost by the OP-1. This fact is accepted by the OPs, who state that despite their best efforts, they were unable to locate the cheque and thus notified the complainant on 08-09-2021, and also suggested that they would issue the dishonour memo, and the said cheque was dishonoured because there was insufficient balance in the issuer's account, and the bank also states that the remedy of recovery against the cheque’s issuer is not extinguished under civil statutes, and the bank is willing to grant an end result. The review of papers reveals that, first and foremost, the complainant is a firm engaged in commercial activity, as admitted by the complainant himself. The complainant had opened a current account with the OP bank in order to conduct its business. The purpose of opening the aforementioned account was thus to benefit the company's commercial interests. As a result, it is observed that the complainant engaged or used the bank's services for a commercial purpose. For the reasons described above, this commission concludes that the complainant is not a consumer within the sense of Section 2(1)(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As a result, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, with the complainant free to pursue any legal remedy.  Accordingly, the Point No.1 we answer in Negative.

10. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

                                        ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the Complainant U/s.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is dismissed. No costs.

2. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 21^th March 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

         MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Bharath Kumar-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Nil

Documents produced by the OPs: Nil
 

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*