N.K. SHARMA vs BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 16.11.2002, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2195/2000 entitled Shri N.K. Sharma v. THE Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Alaknanda, New Delhi & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Shri N.K. Sharma, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had a Savings Bank Account with respondent No. 1 and on 2.1.2000 in the above said account of the appellant there was a balance of Rs. 71,662.42. It was stated that on 5.1.2000, the appellant had deposited a cheque for Rs. 2,09,500/-, drawn on another Bank, in his above mentioned Savings Bank Account. It was stated that on that very date, the appellant had also issued a cheque for Rs. 2,13,975/- in favour of M/s. PRJ Enterprises for purchasing a new car. It was further stated that the above said cheque for Rs. 2,13,975/- dated 5.1.2000, on presentation on 6.1.2000, was dishonoured on account of ''insufficient funds''. THE grievance of the appellant in the complaint filed by him, in nut-shell, was that though in his above mentioned Savings Bank Account, being maintained by respondent No. 1, there was a balance of Rs. 2,81,045/- yet the cheque for Rs. 2,13,975/- issued by him on 5.1.2000 in favour of M/s. PRJ Enterprises for the purchase of a new car was not honoured and was returned on the ground of ''insufficient funds''. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant, in the complaint filed by him, had claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,74,000/-, the value of the car booked by him. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondents. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that as per the banking practice regarding the clearance of the cheques, the position was that only after the time for the return of the cheque was over, the amount of the cheque, sent in clearing, is deemed to have been finally collected and prior to that only a notional credit for the amount of the cheque is given in the account of the account holder and the account holder is not entitled to withdraw any part thereof.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant, with no order as to costs.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The short question requiring consideration by this Commission in the present appeal is as to whether was there any deficiency in service, in the given facts, on the part of the respondents ? On the basis of material on record, it is apparent that it was on 5.1.2000 that the appellant had deposited a cheque for Rs. 2,09,500/- with respondent No. 1 for being credited in his Savings Bank Account. It is also not in dispute that on that very date the appellant had issued a cheque for Rs. 2,13,975/- in favour of M/s. PRJ Enterprises for purchasing a new car. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant was not availing of any overdraft facility from the respondent Bank. It is a matter of common knowledge that credit in respect of the cheques is given to an account holder only after the clearance of the cheques and no benefit can be given to an account holder depositing the cheque on the basis of notional credit that may be given to him after the presentation of the cheque in question. In our opinion, in the given facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The same, as a matter of fact, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.