ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. Shri P.S. Sawhney, the complainant, who is an artist, had visited Delhi with his arte-facts for display in the India International Trade Fair. He had given the job of supplying the glass plate and the etching of art work on it to M/s. Ram Kumar Glass Suppliers, New Delhi, by making an advance of Rs. 1,000. After returning to Chandigarh he sent a cheque for Rs. 1,000 to OP No. 2 towards the balance amount drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh. The complainant had to present this art work to a VVIP. As there was no response from OP No. 2, he was left with no alternative but to personally visit OP No. 2 at Delhi to collect the same by spending Rs. 2,000 on his trip. He went to Delhi to collect the same but he found the job incomplete. OP No. 2 returned the cheque of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant by informing him that the cheque has been dishonoured by M/s. Canara Bank – OP No. 1 and hence, OP No. 2 refused to carry out the work. On perusal of the refused cheque it was revealed that OP No. 1 sent the cheque for collection to Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, instead of Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh.
2. Aggrieved by the action of Canara Bank-OP No. 1, he filed a complaint before the District Forum- II, Chandigarh. The District Forum held that as the complainant had not hired the services of OP No. 1 he is not a consumer qua OP No. 1. Hence, the complaint against OP No. 1 is not maintainable. However, the District Forum directed the OP No. 2 to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the complainant with Rs. 1000 as costs of litigation. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, Chandigarh, which confirmed the order of the District Forum. Hence, the complainant has filed this Revision before us.
3. The petitioner submitted that the impugned cheque was presented by OP No. 1 -Canara Bank to a wrong branch of the Punjab National Bank, and this per se is deficiency in service of OP No. 1. The said deficiency has been compounded by dishonouring the impugned cheque of the petitioner by the concerned bank, in spite of having adequate and sufficient funds being available in his account. This could have resulted in an action against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner availed the services of OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 as OP No. 2 submitted the impugned cheque to the OP No. 1 for encashment.
4. The learned Counsel for the Canara Bank submitted that no deficiency of service has been committed by the Bank, as the concerned cheque was inadvertently sent to the New Delhi Branch of the Punjab National Bank, and that the OP No. 2 could have sent it to the Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh and got the money.
5. The records submitted before us indicate that the complainant is an artist of international repute and he had engaged M/s. Ram Kumar Glass Suppliers, New Delhi for etching of art work depicting the map of Chandigarh on the glass for Rs. 2,000 by paying an advance of Rs. 1,000. This etched glass was to be presented to a VVIP which could not happen because of the lapse of OP No. 1 -Canara Bank. This necessitated unnecessary expensive visits by the artist to New Delhi and also repudiation of the contract and return of the advance by the glass company.
6. To decide the issue, as to whether the complainant is a consumer of Canara Bank, we would refer to the words ‘deficiency’ and ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; as follows:
2(1)(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
Section 2(1)(o) “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
7. It was also contended by the Canara Bank that the petitioner was not having any account with the Canara Bank, and, therefore, he cannot be said to be a consumer vis-a-vis the Canara Bank. In our view, the petitioner would be the beneficiary of the services which were required to be rendered by the Canara Bank. This would be clear from the fact that the cheque was handed over by the petitioner to opposite party No. 2, M/s. Ram Kumar Glass Suppliers. Opposite party No. 2 was having an account with the Canara Bank. OP No. 2 deposited the cheque for encashment at the Canara Bank. OP No. 1 instead of sending the said cheque for encashment at the Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh Branch, from where the cheque was drawn, OP No. 1 sent it to Punjab National Bank at New Delhi Branch, where the petitioner was not having any account. Because of this wrong handling of the cheque by the opposite party No. 1, the petitioner suffered a loss. Petitioner was the beneficiary of the services which were required to be rendered by the Canara Bank to the opposite party No. 2. Hence, the complaint, in our view, was maintainable.
8. Further, the order passed by the State Commission directing the opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as costs cannot be justified. Because, there was no fault on his part in presenting the cheque to the Canara Bank. Hence, the order passed against opposite party No. 2 is required to be set aside.
9. In the result, the Revision Petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the State Commission directing the opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as costs is set aside. And, it is directed that the opposite party No.l, Canara Bank, shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the petitioner for the loss and harassment suffered by him. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.