The complainant qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act despite not having a direct banking relationship, entitling him to claim against the banks for deficiency in service.

ORDER

THIRU.S. KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. The complainant’s case :

The complainant one Sundaramurthy met with an accident and he filed a claim application in M.C.O.P.No.39/2004 before the Sub-Court Virudhunagar. The Sub Court passed an award and the award with interest came to Rs.2,16,219/- towards compensation. The district Commission issued a cheque in the name of Complainant drawn on State Bank of India dated 22.09.2006 bearing No.1205202. It is an account payee crossed cheque. The complainant counsel one P obtained the cheque and presented through ’Bank of India Virudhunagar branch’. It was sent to collection to the ’State Bank of India’. Opposite parties 1 & 3 are Bank of India, Opposite parties 2 & 4 are State Bank of India. The above cheque amount so far not paid to the complainant. After enquires and information obtained through Right to Information Act, he came to understand that the cheque was paid in the Advocate P in the advocates account. Both banks i.e. Bank of India and State Bank of India were committed deficiency in service in honoring and remitting the amount in the account of Advocate and failed to credit the same in the account of complainant. So it causes great mental agony and the complainant also preferred disciplinary proceedings against the Advocate. So he filed this complaint, Totally claiming Rs.31,50,000/- under various heads.

2. In this case opposite parties 2 & 4 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no Consumer and service provider relationship. Apart from that the State Bank did not commit any deficiency in service since the above cheque was sent for collection through another bank and the State Bank cannot verify to which account the cheque amount was credited, so there is no deficiency in service on their part. The bank further contended that the complaint is Barred by Limitation. 3. In this complaint, the complainant alone was examined as PW1 by filing proof affidavit on their side and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked.

4. Both side filed their written arguments and oral arguments were also heard.

5. The following factors are admitted both sides:

(i) Opposite party 1 & 3 are Bank of India Branch and higher Office. Opposite parties 2 & 4 are State Bank of India Branch and its higher Office.

(ii) The complainant obtained a cheque from Sub-Court, Virudhunagar drawn on State Bank of India dated 22.09.2006 in favour of the complainant which is an account payee crossed cheque.

(iii) The complainant did not have any account either in Bank of India or in the State Bank Of India.

(iv) The above complainant cheque was presented by his Advocate one P. and the amount was credited only in the Advocates Account.

(v) All the things happened in the year 2006 itself but the information were obtained and notice were sent to concern bank and finally the complaint was taken on file in the year 2017.

6. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of both banks?

2. Whether the complaint is barred by Limitation?

3. Whether the Opposite parties committed any deficiency in service?

7. Point No.1:

It is an admitted fact that the complainant did not have any account in either ’Bank of India’ or ’State Bank of India’. So the crucial question is whether the complainant has availed any services from the two banks and whether he can be termed as a „Consumer‟. To decide these issues, it would be apposite to refer to the definition of „consumer‟ under Section 2 (d) of the Act, which reads as follows:-

“2 Definitions. › (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,› xxx xxx xxx (d) "consumer" means any perso