R.S.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 2.8.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.05/2011, whereby complaint of the respondent; complainant against the appellant/OP, has been partly allowed and District Forum directed the appellant/OP: (a) to provide No Objection Certificate to the respondent/complainant firm to the effect that there is no outstanding balance against the respondent/complainant; (b) to pay a sum of Rs.7,000 as compensation, for mental agony and (c) to pay a sum of Rs.1,000 towards cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant within a month from the date of order.
(2.) IT is admitted fact in the case that the respondent/complainant partnership firm is having two accounts namely (i) discounting facility account and (ii) current account with the appellant. A tri -parte agreement was executed between the complainant/OPl Bank and Bharti Teletech Limited. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement that if in addition to amount of claim, some other amount is outstanding then the complainant is responsible for its payment, but complainant and OP was having an agreement for marketing of Motorola phone. Bharti Teletech Ltd. was working as national distributor on behalf of the Motorola. The appellant OP filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Indian Negotiable Act against the complainant firm and its partner before Judicial Magistrate First Class, which is, pending.
(3.) BRIEF facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a partnership firm. The complainant firm authorized it's partner Omprakash Daga to file complaint before the District Forum. As per terms of agreement as a security the complainant firm has provided four blank cheques bearing Nos.711801 to 711804 to the appellant OP/Bank. In case the amount of claim is outstanding or is not paid by the complainant, then the amount could be received through the cheque deposited as security after informing the complainant. On 6.2.2009 without obtaining consent of the complainant the OP presented the cheque No.711801 for Rs.12,39,000 whereas the OP was not to receive amount from the complainant but the liability of making payment was of Bharti Teletech Ltd, The OP was not entitled to take said amount from the complainant. Even the OP misused the cheques deposited as security. At present the OP is in possession of three cheques, which can be misused by the OP. When complainant firm raised this objection before the OP that this amount is not outstanding against the complainant, then the OP provided account statement, according to which a sum of Rs.3,50,000 is outstanding on the complainant. Said amount was deposited by Bharti Teletech Ltd., in the account of OP. Thus, there is not outstanding amount due against the complainant. The OP is not providing No Objection Certificate to the complainant. The OP listed the name of complainant firm in the website as defaulter, so the complainant is not able to obtain loan from any Bank. The OP/Bank is working contrary to the terms of the agreement. On 1.10.2010, the S.B.I, issued a letter to the complainant and clarified that unless the OP/Bank provides NOC to the complainant, it cannot consider the application submitted by the complainant firm. No amount is outstanding against the complainant, but OP/Bank will causing damage to its goodwill. The complainant firm is working since 50 years and it is a reputed firm. The goodwill of the firm has been damaged on account of this act of the OP/Bank Therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum with a prayer to direct the OP/Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service committed by the OP Bank and to provide No Objection Certificate. The appellant/OP filed it's written version and averred that the appellant/OP gave intimation to the respondent/complainant before depositing the cheque for payment and the respondent/complainant was having sufficient knowledge regarding the amount, which was due against him. It has further been averred that the District forum has no jurisdiction to try the case and only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The Bharti Teletech Company is also a necessary party in the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of not impleading necessary party in the complaint and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.;