IMPORTANT POINTS
1) OP.1 & 2 being the bankers of OP.3 if acted upon on the request of OP.3 being his service provider, stopped payment, which could not be said either unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part to Respondent no. 1.
2) For deficiency in service, directing OP.1 & 2 to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost per-se incorrect and awarding such compensation and litigation cost is unsustainable, when held there is no consumer and service provider relationship between Respondent No.1 and OP.1 & 2

ORDER

Mr. K.B. Sangannanavar, Judicial Member.—This is an Appeal filed U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2/Appellant/SBI herein, aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 20.10.2016 & 21.10.2016 passed by Tumakuru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C.C.No.118/2015 (for short District Forum/Commission and the parties as arrayed in the consumer complaint).

2. The facts in brief as stated by the Complainant/Respondent No.1/N.B.Kantharaju in his consumer complaint filed U/s.12 of CPA 1986, alleged deficiency of service on the part of OP/SBI since, one Mr.Nanjaiah.V/OP.3 is holding an account bearing No.64050816794 in OP.2 branch, has issued a cheque bearing No.819933/18.08.2015 in favour of the Complainant for Rs.3,50,000/-, which was presented for encashment on 19.08.2015 on the counter of Karnataka Bank Ltd.,/OP.4 Tipaturu branch, where he is holding his account and when the said cheque was sent for clearing to OP.1 & 2, despite availability of the sufficient fund in the account of Mr.Nanjaiah, the Manager of the OP.2 bank, in collusion with said Nanjaiah had issued an endorsement ‘insufficient fund’ and with an endorsement ‘Refer to Drawer’ and returned the said cheque. The action of the OP/SBI returning the cheque with an endorsement of ‘refer to the drawer’ amounts to deficiency in service on the part of it. In this regard, he raised consumer complaint with a prayer to direct OP.1 & 2/SBI to pay the cheque amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and award Rs.1 lakh towards deficiency in service.

3. The afore said complaint was resisted by the OP.1 & 2 contending that Mr.Nanjaiah is their account holder and it is not within their knowledge that he had issued cheque bearing No.819933. They did not dispute that cheque presented through banker of the Complainant namely Karnataka Bank Ltd., Tipaturu branch was not honoured as their account holder informed through letter dated 18.08.2015 itself, to stop payment of his cheques and accordingly the said request has been acted upon by them refereeing the cheque to the drawer and it was sent back to the Bank which was sent for clearance. The Complainant is not a consumer of the OP bank/SBI. The cause of action accrued to him could not be maintained against them as he is not a consumer. The Complainant has already filed a suit in OS.No.335/2015 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Div), Tipaturu, as Plaintiff against Defendant No.1/Nanjaiah the account holder and Defendant No.2/SBI, wherein sought for the relief to restrain the Defendant No.1 from drawing the amount from the a/c no.64050816794 from the branch of Defendant No.2 and to restrain the Defendant No.2 not to release the amount which in deposit in the said account number with Schedule and its cheque no.819933 is issued by Defendant No.1 of Defendant No.2 branch corresponding to the said account. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and there is no deficiency in service on the part OP/SBI.

4. In view of rival contentions of the respective parties, District Forum held an enquiry and during the course of enquiry Mr.Nanjaiah.V and the Karnataka Bank Ltd., K.R.Extention Branch, Tipaturu are impleaded as OP.3 & 4, since the complaint initially raised only against OP. 1 and 2. The District Forum after receiving evidence of parties and documents Ex-P1 to P6 for Complainant and Ops passed two separate orders, one by the President and another by two Members. The President of the Forum below held:

Remedy is available to the Complainant to pursue his legal remedy against OP.3 only. If he so desires, he can file complaint U/s.138 of NI Act in criminal proceedings or can file civil suit before the civil court for recovery of the cheque amount. For deficiency in service, OP.1 & 2 are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Complaint against OP.3 & 4 are dismiss