Skip to content


Subhash Chander Sharma Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Decided On

Case Number

Appeal No. A-270 of 2002

Judge

Appellant

Subhash Chander Sharma

Respondent

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Excerpt:


consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g) - comparative citation: 2004 (4) cpj 427.....a cheque no. 327078 dated 7.2.2000 drawn on canara bank for rs. 38,446/-in the late hours when the clearing for the day had already lapsed. this fact is apparent from the deposit slip received by the respondent as there is remark “that it was received late for days clearing.” the cheque deposited by the appellant was sent for clearing to canara bank on 8.2.2000 and was cleared on 10.2.2000. in the meantime on 9.2.2000 the appellant issued a cheque for rs. 16,000/- in favour of telco which on presentation was returned with the remarks “effects not yet cleared present again.” 3. the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the cheque deposited by him drawn on canara bank for the amount of rs. 38,446/- was cleared on 9.2.2000 but on account of the inefficiency of the staff of the respondent the said amount could not be posted in the saving account of the appellant and, therefore, the cheque for rs. 16,000/- issued by him in favour of telco was dishonoured. 4. even if we assume the contention of the counsel for the appellant as correct that the cheque drawn on canara bank was encashed on 9.2.2000 though according to the respondent it was cleared on.....

Judgment:


J.D. Kapoor, President:

1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1.3.2002 passed by District Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank inasmuch as the cheque issued by him in favour of finance company was returned with the reasons “effects not yet cleared, present again” was dismissed.

2. We have perused the impugned order and find that on 7.2.2000 the appellant had credit balance of Rs. 1,264.30 in his saving account No. 9214 and had deposited a cheque No. 327078 dated 7.2.2000 drawn on Canara Bank for Rs. 38,446/-in the late hours when the clearing for the day had already lapsed. This fact is apparent from the deposit slip received by the respondent as there is remark “that it was received late for days clearing.” The cheque deposited by the appellant was sent for clearing to Canara Bank on 8.2.2000 and was cleared on 10.2.2000. In the meantime on 9.2.2000 the appellant issued a cheque for Rs. 16,000/- in favour of Telco which on presentation was returned with the remarks “effects not yet cleared present again.”

3. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the cheque deposited by him drawn on Canara Bank for the amount of Rs. 38,446/- was cleared on 9.2.2000 but on account of the inefficiency of the staff of the respondent the said amount could not be posted in the saving account of the appellant and, therefore, the cheque for Rs. 16,000/- issued by him in favour of Telco was dishonoured.

4. Even if we assume the contention of the Counsel for the appellant as correct that the cheque drawn on Canara Bank was encashed on 9.2.2000 though according to the respondent it was cleared on 10.2.2000 but the possibility of presentation of the cheque issued by the appellant in favour of Telco on 9.2.2000 earlier to the posting of the encashment of the cheque drawn on Canara Bank cannot be ruled out.

5. Concept of deficiency in service is not to be assessed or ascertained by way of mathematical precision as is being projected in the instant case by the Counsel for the appellant. According to him the cheque deposited by the appellant drawn on Canara Bank was cleared by the Bank on 9.2.2000 and that the cheque drawn in favour of Telco was also presented on 9.2.2000. The official concerned was only concerned with the amount of credit balance in the saving account of the appellant at the time when the cheque was presented. Since the said balance was not there and as per practice of the bank the cheque was returned not as being dishonoured but with the remarks “effects not yet cleared, present again” because of the cheque drawn on Canara Bank was in the process of clearance.

6. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum and dismiss the appeal.

7. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. The FDR deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant after completing necessary formalities.

Appeal dismissed.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //