1. This is a petition filed by one Sri Yam Prasad Ghimire (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against Manager, State Bank of India, Nagaon Branch, Nagaon and two others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs.
2. Facts and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-
The petitioner is an Indian Citizen and being a Contractor of Telecom Department submitted tender in response to an advertisement issued by Manager, BSNL Nagaon for an work order and with the tender also filed a multicity cheque of S.B.I. Diphu Branch for an amount of Rs.45,300.00/- as earnest money issued by Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu, Karbi Anglong which was established by Central Government and Government of Assam and Sponsored by State Bank of India. Further submission of the complainant is that after submitting the tender, BSNL deposited the above mentioned cheque with the SBI, NAgaon for encashment but the cheque was wrongly dishonored by the State Bank of India, Nagaon with a note “due to insufficient fund” and thereafter, BSNL rejected the tender filed by the complainant. The complainant submitted that due to rejection of his tender by BSNL, he has to suffer loss for an amount of Rs.50 Lacs (Fifty Lacs) and due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of SBI, Nagaon and Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu, he has to suffer that loss. He stated that before dishonoring the cheque, the SBI Nagaon has not gone through the statements of account properly and Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu has issued the said cheque on receiving full amount from him and hence, there was no question of dishonoring his cheque . The complainant submitted that after receiving information about dishonor of the cheque, he issued notice through advocate upon the opposite parties on 03-03-2014 and then filed this petition before this Commission U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act claiming for relief as prayed for in his petition.
3. The opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 have filed their written statement while opposite party No.2 having not filed their written version, the case was heard ex-parte against opposite party No.2. By its written statement the opposite party No.1 pleaded that there no cause of action for the complainant for filing the petition against this answering opposite party and their opposite party No.1 has no action with the case of the complainant and hence, the case is liable to be dismissed due misjoinder of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 also pleaded that the petition of the complainant is not enable in law and also barred by principle of wavier, stoppal and acquiesence etc. and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1, s,o the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed. According to answering opposite party No.1 on 28-11-2013, the Indian Bank, Nagaon branch for opposite party No.3 BSNL presented a cheque bearing No.016847 dated 28-11-2013 for an amount of Rs.45,300.00 for encashment. The cheque in question was issued by Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu which was established under sub-section 10, section 3 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and the said bank opened an account with the SBI, Diphu branch being account No.30437238912. The opposite party further submitted that before clearing the amount of the cheque and releasing the money the SBI, Nagaon branch found that there was insufficient balance in account No.30437238912 and as such it was dishonored. Further submission of opposite party No.1 at the time of at the time of clearing batch Rs.11862.75 paisa was only available in account No.30437238912 but on 28-11-2013 after release of clearing batch at 01:35:04 P.M., an amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 (Ten Lacs) only was deposited in the aforesaid account No.30437238912 of Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu maintained with the SBI, Diphu branch. Further plea of the opposite party No.1 is that at the time of release of clearing batch, the Account No.30437238912 of Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu was found having no sufficient amount to honour the cheque in question. Hence there is no option left to this answering opposite party No.1, but to dishonor the cheque on the ground of (insufficient fund) and return to Indian Nagaon Bank on 28-11-2013 and there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. Hence opposite Party No.1 prays for dismissing the complaint petition against this opposite party No.1 with cost.
Opposite party No.3 stated in their written version that they received the cheque No.016847 amounting to Rs.45,300.00 from Yam Prasad Ghimire and the same was deposited to their collection bank account No.507140454 with Indian Bank, Nagaon Branch. It was stated further that the cheque was dishonored by the bank and the amount was not credited to their bank account and accordingly, the tender was not offered to the petitioner. Further version of opposite party No.3 is that as per bank statement upto March,2014, no such cheque was cleared in their bank account and as such, BSNL cannot be held responsible for such incidence and prays for passing necessary order in this case.
4. Upon consideration of the claims of both side, the points for consideration in this case are found as follows:-
- Whether due to negligent of opposite party No.1 and 2, the cheque submitted by the petitioner with his tender before BSNL was dishonored for which his tender was rejected and he suffered huge loss and such act on the part of opposite parties amount to deficient in service?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
5. Both parties filed evidence in affidavit of one witness each and also exhibited several documents in support of their claim. The witnesses were cross-examined by the opponents.
6. Written argument filed by the parties and advance oral arguments in support thereof.
7. Decision and reasons theref:-
8. For the sake of brevity both the Point (i) & (i) are taken jointly for discussion and decision.:-
The claim of the petitioner is that his cheque was wrongly dishonored because after receiving the full amount from him by Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu, the cheque in question was issued to him and he submitted the cheque along with his tender before BSNL. In support of his claim, the petitioner as P.W.1 adduced evidence to the effect that being a telecom Contractor of Telecom Department, he submitted tender in response to an advertisement issued by Manager, BSNL Nagaon for an work order and with the tender also filed a multicity cheque of S.B.I. Diphu Branch for an amount of Rs.45,300.00/- as earnest money issued by Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu, Karbi Anglong which was established by Central Government and Government of Assam and Sponsored by State Bank of India. Further evidence of the P.W.1 is that after submitting the tender, the BSNL deposited the above mentioned cheque with the SBI, Nagaon for encashment but the cheque was wrongly dishonored by the State Bank of India, Nagaon with a note ‘due to insufficient fund” and thereafter BSNL rejected the tender filed by the complainant. The complainant submitted that due to rejection of his tender by BSNL, he has to suffer huge loss and due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of SBI, Nagaon and Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu, he has to suffer financially, mentally and physically. This P.W. also exhibited the photocopy of his cheque vide Ext.1, Cheque return Memo with remark vide Ext.2, Letter issued by BSNL Officer and Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu with cheque vide Ext.3, pleader’s notice vide Ext.4 and reply of S.B.I. Nagaon vide Ext.5.
- In support of their written version, the opposite party No.1 examined one Ratnabati Dey, Asstt. General Manager of SBI, Nagaon as D.W.1. In her evidence in affidavit, this D.W deposed that at the time of release of clearing batch, the Account No.30437238912 of Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu was found having no sufficient amount to honour the cheque in question and hence, the same was returned rightly on ground of “insufficient fund’ to Union Bank and hence, there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. This witness also exhibited a copy of Statement of Account No.30437238912 of Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu vide Ext,A and a copy of Banking Incoming transaction dt.28/11/2013 vide Ext.B
10. Thus, the admitted position is that the cheque of the petitioner was dishonored for which his tender was rejected and he suffered loss. The petitioner adduced evidence that Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu, issued the cheque in question to him after receiving the full amount. The opposite party No.1 pleaded and adduced evidence that at the time of release of clearing batch, the Account No.30437238912 of Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu was found having no sufficient amount to honour the cheque in question and hence, the same was returned rightly on ground of “insufficient fund’. The D.W.1 in her evidence exhibited a document vide B from where it is seen that on last 28/11/2013, at 1:35:04 PM an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was deposited in the Account No.30437238912 of Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu maintained with SBI, Diphu. Hence, it is clear that the complainant has deposited the cheque amount with Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu before receiving the cheque in question and such fact is not disputed by the opposite parties. The opposite party No.2, namely, Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu did not contest in the case. It is also an admitted fact that the SBI sponsored the Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu and hence, before dishonouring the cheque in question, SBI Nagaon had the responsibility to enquire from Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu as to whether cheque amount was deposited or not and ought not t dishonor the cheque immediately but to wait for some more time. Thus, we found and hold that both SBI and Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank at Diphu have a joint liability while dishonoring the cheque of the complainant and for their negligent act the complainant has to suffer loss for not passing his tender by BSNL authority. Such act on the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
Hence, in view of above discussion both the points (i) and (ii) are answered in affirmative. The complainant had to suffer financial, emotional and mental pain for the negligent act of the opposite party No.1 and 2 hence, he is entitled to claim compensation from these opposite parties.
O R D E R
11. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has succeeded to prove that there was a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 and 2.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is allowed on contest. Issue direction to the opposite party No.1 and 2 to pay jointly an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lakh)only with interest @ 12 per annum from today till realization. Both these opposite parties are liable to bear half amount of the total compensation as awarded.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this forum, we signed and delivered
this Judgment on this 12th Day of March 2021.
