Sri Jagadish Chandra Barman, Member,
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows:-
The complainant Sri Gautam Kumar Paul possesses a savings bank account vide no- 30651402366 in the Subhash Gram Branch of the State Bank of India. The complainant mentioned in his complain that he submitted to the The Branch Manager , State Bank of India, Subhash Gram Branch on 26/6/2019 an account payee cheque of Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing no- 061516, dated 30.3.2019 in his name of Rs. 300.00 only for clearance and crediting in his account. The account no. of Kotak Mahindra Bank is 566011021840 Astra 25 CBS and pass book holder is Gautam Paul.
The complainant stated in his petition that the O. P. No-3, the branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Subhash Gram did not honour and credit the said cheque into the account of the complainant in time ; but returned under memo no- 123421/354002/240 dated-01.July 2019 to the petitioner stating reason for not crediting the said cheque as –“ 31-Instrument out dated stale. The amount has been debited to your 00000030651402366.” But as per statement Rs. 177/- only was debited on 01.7.2019 from the account of the complainant of the SBI, Subhash Gram as non-clearance charge of the said cheque.
As per statement, the complainant placed the account payee cheque on 26/6/2019 and normally for the clearance of the cheque; one or two working days are needed. Hence, it was submitted well in advance before the authority of SBI, Subhash Gram Branch. But due to the negligence of the O. P. No-3, account payee cheque was not cleared in time by the Kotak Mahindra Bank.
According to the complainant, thereafter, contacted several times with the Branch Manager of the SBI, Subhash Gram and informed the matter verbally. At that time, the Branch Manager had assured the complainant to refund the deducted amount Rs. 177/- only into the account of the complainant. But Rs. 177/- only was not refunded into the account of the petitioner. So the legal right of the customer/petitioner to get proper service from the O. P.No-3 had been infringed. In these ways, the O. P. No- 3 had harassed the customer here the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Finding no other alternative and aggrieved upon the attitude of the O. Ps. , the complainant has filed this instant case before this Ld. Commission for proper adjudication and has also sought for following relieves:-
1. To issue an order upon the O. P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 to refund Rs. 177/- only to the SBI account bearing no- 30651402366 of the Subhash Gram Branch.
2. To issue an order upon the O. P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 to pay compensation amount Rs. 40,000=00 only for suffering from mental agony, harassment by the complainant; and for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service occurred on the part of the O. Ps.
3 . To issue an order upon the O. Ps. to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 15,000=00 only.
4. To issue an order upon the O. Ps. as the Ld. Commission may deem fit and proper.
After receiving the complaint petition, the Ld. Commission sent show cause notices to the O. Ps. The O. P. 1, 2 & 3 appeared and filed their written version on 16th January 2020 before the Ld. Commission.
In the reply, the Opposite Parties1, 2 & 3 have stated that this instant case is not maintainable as well as they denied each and every allegation mentioned in the complaint petition. The opposite party no-1, 2 and 3 have also stated that there is no cause of action to file this complaint petition against the O. P. 1, 2 & 3. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
The O. P. 1, 2 & 3 have stated in their w. v. that the complainant dropped the said account payee cheque of Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing no- 061516 dated 30.03.2019 on 26.6.2019 in the branch of SBI, Subhash Gram. But due to some sorts of server problem, they could not send the said cheque on the same day but they sent that cheque to the Kotak Mahindra Bank for clearance on 29.6.2019. Hence, it was sent in time. According to the O. Ps., it was ought to drop the said cheque within time but in this case, the complainant kept the said cheque in his hand for long time and submitted that in the O. P. No-3 Bank on 26/6/3019 for harassing to the O. Ps. The said account payee cheque was returned by the Kotak Mahindra Bank with remarks`` out dated”. So, there was no negligence on the part of the O. Ps. but on the side of the complainant and the Kotak Mahindra Bank. The O. Ps. have also opined that it is the norms of the Bank to debit charges for non- clearance of any cheque and for non- clearance of the said cheque, the complainant was responsible. Hence the complainant has filed this frivolous, vexatious case only for wrongful gain. So, there is no cause in this instant case to issue order to pay compensation amount, litigation cost and return of Rs. 177/- only to the complainant. The O. P. No 1, 2 & 3 have claimed to dismiss this instant case with exemplary cost against the complainant.
Upon the averments of the complaint petition, evidences, BNAs and W. V. etc. of both sides, the following points are formulated:-
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
1]. Is the complainant a ‘Consumer’?
2] Are the O. Ps. guilty of deficiency of services, negligence and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?
3] Is the complainant entitled to get relief /relieves as prayed for?
EVIDENCES, QUESTIONNAIRES, REPLIES & BNAS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND O.Ps.
The Complainant filed evidences on affidavit on 11.02.2021 and the O.P.1, 2 & 3 filed evidences on affidavit on 03.03.2021. Both parties filed their respective questionnaires, replies and Brief Notes of Arguments in time.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS.
Points no. 1, 2, & 3.
The complainant Sri Gautam Kumar Paul possesses a savings bank account vide no- 30651402366 in the Subhash Gram Branch of the State Bank of India. The complainant submitted to the The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Subhash Gram Branch on 26/6/2019 an account payee cheque of Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing no- 061516, dated 30.3.2019 in his name of Rs. 300.00 only for clearance and crediting in his account.
Hence, the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under definition of Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986
In relation to point for determination no. 2 “Are all O. Ps. guilty of deficiency in services, negligence on duty and unfair trade practice’’ and for point no-3, “Is the complainant entitled to get relief /relieves as prayed for?”,- it is very much worthy to mention that the complainant dropped the account payee cheque of Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing no- 061516 dated 30.03.2019 on 26.6.2019 in the branch of SBI, Subhash Gram. But due to some sorts of server problem, the O. P. Bank no.-3 could not send the said cheque on the same day but O. P. No-3 Bank sent that cheque to the Kotak Mahindra Bank for clearance on 29.6.2019. Hence, it was not sent in time. The said account payee cheque was also not cleared but returned by the Kotak Mahindra Bank with remarks`` out dated”.
So, the O. P. No-3, the branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Subhash Gram did not honour and credit the said cheque into the account of the complainant in time ; but returned under memo no- 123421/354002/240 dated-01 July 2019 to the petitioner stating reason for not crediting the said cheque as –“ 31-Instrument out dated stale.” And Rs. 177/- only was debited on 01.7.2019 from the account of the complainant by the SBI, Subhash Gram as non-clearance charge of the said cheque.
So, it is clear to us that the complainant paid Rs. 177.00 only to the O. P. S. B. I. Branch, Subhash Gram but the Complainant did not get any proper service from the O. Ps. Hence, the O. Ps. are liable for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to pay litigation cost Rs. 5,000.00 only and compensation amount to the tune of Rs.6,000.00 only. They are also liable to refund the debited amount Rs. 177.00 only with 9% simple interest from the date of deduction i.e., 1st July 2019 till realization to the Complainant.
All the amount of Litigation cost, compensation amount and debited amount should be paid within 45 days from the date of issuing this Order. Otherwise, 9% p.a. simple interest should be borne by the Opposite Parties either jointly or severally from the date of issuing this Order till realization.
As a result, the complaint case is succeeded.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the Opposite Party no 1, 2 & 3 with the litigation cost Rs. 5,000.00 only to be paid to the Complainant.
The O. Ps. are liable for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and as such liable to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs.6, 000.00 only. They are also liable to refund the debited amount Rs. 177.00 only to the Complainant with 9% simple interest from the date of deduction i.e., 1st July 2019 till realization.
All the amount of Litigation cost and compensation amount should be paid either jointly or severally within 45 days from the date of issuing this Order. Otherwise, 9% p.a. simple interest should be borne by the Opposite Parties from the date of issuing this Order till realization.
The complainant is also given liberty to file an Execution case by using the machinery of this Ld. Commission against the Opposite Parties no 1, 2 & 3 after the expiry of 45 days, if the order is not complied with.
Let copies of the order be supplied to all the parties concerned in either speed post /registered post free of cost as per rule.
The final order be also available in www.confonet.nic.in .
Prepared and Corrected by me.
( Sri Jagadish Chandra Barman)
(Member)
