VINDHYAVASINI GRAMIN BANK vs GANESH VASTRALAYA

THE appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 2.1.1993 passed by District Forum, Sonbhadra whereby the complaint filed by firm M/s. Ganesh Vastralaya through its proprietor has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,107/- with 12% interest payable with effect from 24.9.1991.

WHEN the appeal was filed it was accompanied by an application for an interim stay order. However, while admitting the appeal, the prayer for staying the execution of the order of the District Forum was rejected unconditionally. Notices were repeatedly issued to the respondent but he has not appeared. However, the Bank-appellant is represented by Mr. Vinay Shankar assisted by Mr. Amar Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel who has been heard and the entire record has been examined. During the course of argument copy of the complaint has been filed today with permission of the Commission which will form part of the record.

The complainant''s allegations lie in a narrow compass. A bearer cheque was issued by one Sri Jawahar Prasad on the appellant Bank. It is said that the complainant went to get the cheque encashed but the appellant Bank without any justifiable reason, refused to honour the same and the cheque remained uncashed. This, in turn, caused enormous harm to the reputation of the complainant inasmuch as he lost monetarily also because of non-receiving the funds on behalf of the account holder because the cheque was admittedly a bearer one payable to the account holder or the carrier.

IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that the District Forum erred in decreeing the complaint for two reasons. Those reasons are taken up hereinafter in seriatim. The first argument advanced is that the complaint was not maintainable because Jawahar Prasad account holder is not the complainant. It is contended that the firm is neither the consumer nor account holder in the appellant Bank. This argument is wholly misconceived and omits to notice the foundation of the complaint. The bearer cheque was issued obviously in the name of the account holder or the carrier. Once the representative who goes to collect the cheque amount is returned unserved with the required amount, he does step into the shoes of the account holder being the bearer on behalf of the said account holder. Consequently, the complaint is in all respects filed for and on behalf of account holder, therefore, this argument is rejected.

THE second contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the account holder Jawahar Prasad was having a cash credit limit and since the encashment of aforesaid bearer cheque would have resulted in crossing the cash credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- , there was no option but to refuse the encashment of the said cheque. It is further contended that a letter to that effect was written by the bank to the account holder but no corrective measures were taken by the account holder nor deposit of corresponding amount was made, with the result the cheque was returned uncashed with the relevant noting. This argument has also no legs to stand. THE Bank has not shown any reasons for returning the cheque uncashed that the amount would be falling short of the cash credit limit. THE Bank has also not filed any letter before the District Forum. Assuming for a moment that the letter may have been written or the account holder may have taken some further action, the Bank has not pleaded that action through the written statement. THE subsequent stand of the Bank in order to improve the pleadings already put through the written statement before the District Forum is not permissible. Consequently, this argument has also to be rejected. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no point is surviving for interfering on merits with the impugned order of the District Forum. As already noted above, the decree is of the year 1993 and no interim order was passed in favour of the appellant.

IN view of what has been discussed above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.