Judgment:
Dev Raj, Member:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a Private Limited Company formed by its members for earning livelihood by means of self employment. It was stated that the complainant opened one cash credit limit account bearing No.0087008700047036 with the Opposite Party Bank. It was further stated that the complainant engaged Fakir Badshah Carriers, G.T. Road, Sirhind Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, for sending goods from one place to another. It was further stated that the said transporter used to raise bills and the complainant, accordingly, either used to pay the charges through cash or cheque. It was further stated that the complainant gave a cheque to said Fakir Badshah Carriers bearing No.589479 dated 10.08.2007 for Rs.1,13,138/- in lieu of the services rendered. It was further stated that the complainant issued a letter dated 24.10.2007, Annexure C-2, to the Opposite Party for stopping payment of the said cheque. It was further stated that the Opposite Party confirmed œstop payment? of the said cheque and issued a letter to the complainant, Annexure C-3, to that effect and charged Rs.50/- as bank charges. It was further stated that despite stopping payment of the cheque, in question, the transaction qua the same never appeared in the account of the complainant and, accordingly, it continued to operate the said account, believing that payment of the said cheque had been stopped. It was further stated that the Opposite Party never gave any intimation to the complainant at any stage that the cheque, in question, had ever been presented for payment since October, 2007 till October, 2011. It was further stated that the complainant, in lieu of stop payment of the said cheque, paid Rs.14,000/- to Fakir Badshah Carriers on 18.12.2007 and also gave another cheque bearing No.589372 dated 21.12.2007 for Rs.1,95,151/-, as per the statement of account, Annexure C-6. It was further stated that since the complainant had duly paid its dues to Fakir Badshah Carriers, therefore, it had no liability against cheque dated 10.8.2007, and the same was not to be honoured. It was further stated that in the month of October, 2011, the complainant started processing the closure of the said account with the Opposite Party, and, at that time, the latter suddenly debited Rs.1,13,138/- in lieu of cheque dated 10.8.2007 and further debited Rs.2,822/- as œS/F AL REC-Recovered? in the account of the complainant on 18.10.2011 without any reason vide Annexure C-7. It was further stated that the complainant contacted the Opposite Party, a number of times, but to no avail. It was further stated that the act of the Opposite Party in illegally debiting the amount of Rs.1,13,138/- and Rs.2,822/- to the account of the complainant, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing Opposite Party, to refund Rs.1,13,138 and Rs.2,822/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of debit i.e. 18.10.2011; pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency, in rendering service, and adoption of unfair trade practice; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/-.
3. The Opposite Party, in its written statement, submitted that the complainant was not a consumer, as it was a commercial loan, and that the complaint was filed beyond limitation as the cheque, in dispute, was passed by the Opposite Party “ Bank on 11.8.2007 whereas the complaint was filed after six years. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant was having an account with the Opposite Party Bank. It was further stated that cheque No.589479, dated 10.8.2007 was collected by the then Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited (since merged with HDFC Bank) through clearing on 11.8.2007 through the Opposite Party and credited to the account of Fakir Badshah Carriers. The letter of HDFC Bank which collected the said cheque was Annexure R-1. It was also admitted that letter dated 24.10.2007 was received by the Opposite Party Bank, but the said cheque had already been cleared by the Bank on 11.8.2007. It was further stated that the account of the party, because of error in the computer, was left to be debited by the Regional Processing Centre. It was further stated that since the account was not debited and cheque was not entered in it (system), the system accepted the command of stop payment, otherwise it would have rejected the cheque number. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.1,13,138/- was debited to the account on 18.10.2011 by Regional Processing Centre while reconciling its imprest account as it had already made payment of the amount to the then Centurion Bank of Punjab (since merged with HDFC Bank) on 11.8.2007, which was credited to the account of Fakir Badshah Carriers (Annexure R-1). It was further stated that the debit of Rs.2,822/- to the account pertained to the unrecovered charges, shortfall amount and was automatically debited by the system from time to time and it had no connection whatsoever with stop payment of the cheque/amount (Annexure R-2). It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The complainant, filed replication, wherein it reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Complainant.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the appellant/complainant issued letter dated 24.10.2007 to the respondent/Opposite Party, for stopping payment of cheque dated 10.08.2007, which had not been cleared as per the account statement. It was further submitted that the District Forum illegally dismissed the complaint without appreciating the fact that once the appellant/complainant had issued the letter for stopping payment and when the clearance of the cheque was not reflected till that date, the payment made was the sole responsibility and liability of the respondent/Opposite Party Bank. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside and the complaint be accepted.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter.
11. The first question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant was a consumer, within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act or not. Though the complainant had stated in Para 1 of the complaint, that it was a Private Limited Company formed by its members for earning livelihood, by means of self employment, yet it was not disputed in the replication, that the cash credit limit/loan obtained by it (complainant) was a commercial loan, as stated by the Opposite Party in Para 13 of its reply. Otherwise also, the complainant is a Private Limited Company and the transactions/balance reflected in its statement of account (Exhibit C-8) are in crores, which clearly revealed that it (complainant) was engaged in the business not for self employment, but for earning huge profits. Therefore, the objection of the Opposite Party, that the business was being run for earning huge profits, by raising commercial loans etc. has force. Thus, the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer under the Act.
12. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the respondent/Opposite Party, in not complying with the instructions contained in letter dated 24.10.2007 issued by the appellant/complainant, whereby the request for stopping payment against cheque dated 10.08.2007 was made. It is evident from record, that the appellant/complainant had issued cheque No.589479 dated 10.08.2007 in the sum of Rs.1,13,138/- in favour of Fakir Badshah Carriers. It is also, in evidence, that the appellant/complainant issued letter dated 24.10.2007, for stopping payment of that cheque. In the normal course, when the cheque is presented to the Bank, credit against the same is afforded within 2-3 days. The appellant/complainant had issued instructions vide letter dated 24.10.2007, not on the basis of any confirmation, from the bank, but reportedly on seeing his account statement. As per the written statement of the respondent/Opposite Party, it has come, in evidence, that the cheque, in question, was collected by the then Centurion bank of Punjab Limited (since merged with HDFC Bank) through clearing on 11.08.2007 and credited to the account of Fakir Badshah Carriers on that date, whereas the request for stopping payment was received by the Opposite Party Bank on 24.10.2007. It was only on account of computer error that the amount was not debited to the account of the appellant/complainant on 11.08.2007. It was, however, clearly established that the credit against the said cheque stood afforded in the account of the payee on 11.08.2007 itself much before 24.10.2007 when the appellant/complainant issued instructions for stop payment. Thus, the District Forum rightly held that the clearing of the cheque was done on 11.8.2007, and there was no deficiency, in rendering service, attributable to the respondent/Opposite Party.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant.
14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
16. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.