Order No.                 .

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that the complainants being the bona fide consumer of the OP Bank having their permanent Savings Bank Account No.3509 with the OP Bank No.3.

          Fact remains complainant issued three account payee cheques being nos.753862 dated 04-12-2012, 753863 dated 06-12-2012 and 753864 dated 08-12-2012 to one Anita Samanta amounting to Rs.1 lakh each against each cheque i.e. total Rs.3 lakhs.

          Said Anita Samanta on receiving those three A/c. Payee cheq         ues, deposited to her Bank i.e. Union Bank of India, Ashokgarh Branch, Kolkata – 700 108 on 27-12-2012 for encashment and their banker sent it for clearance but after clearance by the OP2 the said cheques were bounced on the ground or note with the remark of the OP2 Bank to the effect “cheque out of range” on 29-12-2012.

          On receipt of the said information and document complainant No.1 immediately contacted with the OP3 but they failed to give any satisfactory reply.  But truth is that at the relevant point of time there was sufficient amount in the balance in the account of the complainant in respect of their account No.3509.

          For the negligent and deficient manner of service and also for unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs 2 and 3 complainant has suffered much humiliation, mental pain and agony and in this regard, complainant went to the OPs for relief but they refused and finding no other alternative complainant sent legal notice to the OPs2 and 3 through their lawyer but on receipt of the said notice also OP2 did not settle the dispute of the complainant by compensating till today and for which for deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs1 to 3, the present complaint is filed for redressal. 

          No doubt OPs by filing written statement submitted that the three cheques issued by the complainant in favour of Anita Samanta which were presented for clearance through another bank were not cleared due to some intentional technical lapses of the OP on 29-12-2012 but as and when he intimated verbally immediately the OP Bank redress their grievances on 07-01-2013 by way of sending the amount through another mode with their consent and filing up of the application on the same date and issuance of three yourselves cheques for those without having no manner of objection from the complainant and for which the present complaint is afterthought speculative and only for monetary benefit this complaint is filed and present complaint is not maintainable and further OPs have submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable for that.

Decision with Reasons

It is undisputed fact that Bank appeared in this case filed written statement and also filed one application u/s.11 of C.P. Act, as filed by the OP1 on 03-09-2013 was rejected on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- but OPs after that not paid that cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  Thereafter, OP got several scopes to file Evidence in Chief and practically Ld. Lawyer for the OP submitted that their written version may be treated as Evidence in Chief and argument may be closed accordingly without getting any evidence we relied upon the written version of the OP as OPs Evidence in Chief and argument was heard finally.

          From the argument as advanced by the OPs Ld. Lawyer we have gathered that they have admitted that due to some technical fault on the part of the Bank the cheques being no.753862 to 753864 (three cheques) of dated 04-12-2012, 06-12-2012 and 08-12-2012 were not cleared and it was refused with a note cheque out of range.  But it is their submission as and when the matter was reported to the OP Bank by the complainant forthwith complainant was redressed and in place of that fresh three cheques complainant issued further three cheques and that was cleared forthwith.  Thereafter, complainant did not submit any complaint to the OP Bank so the entire allegation is false and fabricated.

          Lastly Ld. Lawyer for the OP submitted that statement of account will speak that on 27-12-2012 the total amount in the balance of the complainant was Rs.2,98,191/- but total amount of the three cheques were Rs.3 lakhs so it was noted cheque out of range. 

          But considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant it is found that complainant tried to show that on 27-12-2012 complainant had amount up to Rs.3 lakhs but anyhow after considering the complainant’s copy of pass book it is clear that in between 26-12-2012 to 02-01-2013 the total balance in the complainant’s account was Rs.2,98,191/- and Rs.2,99,591/- and fact remains after consulting the said statement of account as produced by the complainant we are convinced to hold that there was no scope to clear three cheques on 27-12-2012 because total balance was below Rs.3 lakhs.  So, on 29-12-2012 there was no scope to honour the three cheques at a time and no doubt the above three cheques were submitted by Anita.  On the same date and at a time and fact remains at a time three cheques could not be cleared for want of same short of balance in the account of the complainant but fact remains that there was every scope to clear two cheques of Rs.1 lakh each at best Bank Authority may not consider third cheque of Rs.1 lakh stating balance is short but without adopting that procedure which is normal process but OP Bank did not clear all the three cheques though same are separate in nature and amount was with separate date and fact remains as because the cheques were separate in nature OP2 issued return memo 3 in number on 29-12-2012.  Then it is clear that the entire Allahabad Bank Authority did not serve the customers with dedication and with responsibility.  Now, it is become a practice of the Bank Authority to say that it is a failure of the computer or their system and to satisfy the customer it is not their fault.  Then question is whether in particular case employees of the Bank were at fault or its computer or their system failure.  After considering the return memo no.3 in (B Series) we have gathered that three separate return memos were issued onset cheque out of range but fact remains on that date in the account of the complainant there was an amount of Rs.2,98,191/- and if we consider the balance amount we are sure that two cheques having amount of Rs.1 lakh can easily be cleared, third may be returned with such observation of cheque out of range.

          So, considering the above fact is clear that it is human failure not the failure of link or failure of the machine or failure of the system and it is also proved that this complainant practically suffered as their prestige were lowered down for the inefficient creativities of the staff of the Allahabad Bank but the staff of different banks are taking the alibi that system is not accepting, link failure or machine is not functioning then question is what is the necessity of the concerned staff to run the entire system.  No doubt in this case OP has admitted that due to technical fault it was not cleared but it is completely a false, fabricated statement of OP and further administration of Allahabad Bank did not care to submit an apology to the complainant to that effect that that was their staff’s failure when at least two cheques could have been cleared.  What provided the OPs to send a letter to the complainant with a regard that this incident happened for same fault of the staff and also pray for mercy but that has not been done.   After that they appeared before this Forum and tried to prove that it was technical defect.  Even a nonsense public shall not be satisfied about such defence of the OP or clarification of the OP.  But truth is that Bank’s staff are thinking that customers or consumers are nonsense public and their explanation in respect of the deficiency in service can easily be convinced to such non-sense public by shifting their liability to computer link system or software system etc. and in this case that procedure has been adopted and no doubt it is unfair trade practice on the part of the Allahabad Bank Authority. 

          Considering the facts we are convinced to hold that issue of return memo in respect of at least two cheques out of three could have been done by the staff who are working on that date in the Bank without any sincerety and  from the conduct of the staff of the OP it is clear that OP’s Bank are passing their days by gossiping without performing their day to day duty with proper care and attention and in this case callousness on the part of the staff of the Allahabad Bank is well proved and that staff has not been penalized by the Allahabad Bank Authority because Bank Authority has lost their all administrative control over the staff on the ground that they shall have to agitate.  Their administration has become a silent spectator even after handling day to day irregular work and duties of the employees and in this case same incident happened but Bank Authority did not take any action against the employee by shifting all the liabilities to deaf and dumb and brainless computer and its system.

          Truth is that deficient, negligent work on the part of the OPs and their staff and lack of devotion of staff by Allahabad Bank said incident occurred and practically prestige of the complainant was lowered down to the person in whose favour cheques were issued.  And further fact is ultimately OPs did not clear those cheques but by taking fresh cheques from the complainant OPs cleared the demand of Anita Samanta and which was done on 07-01-2013. 

          Considering all the above facts and materials we are convinced to hold that complainant no doubt were harassed by the OP Bank and practically OP’s Bank in deficient and negligent manner rendered service for which the dignity and prestige of the complainants were damaged in the society and also to Anita Samanta in whose favour cheque was issued which were bounced by the Bank Authority for their laches for which complainant is entitled to some compensation for such sort of incident, such sort of harassment cannot be assessed by money but even then a reasonable amount of compensation should be paid by the OPs to the complainants.  Accordingly both OPs are liable to pay compensation, litigation cost etc and practically we have convinced that this OPs had their scope not to settle the matter peacefully but they forced the complainant to appear before this Forum that means there was some inactive attitude, bureaucratic attitude on the part of the Bank Administration.  If the social approach of the Bank Administration was there, there was no scope of the complainant to file this complaint and fact remains complainant sent demand notice through lawyer at that time OP may face it by giving such letter to the complainant but their bureaucrat did not take any action and being aggrieved complainant were compelled to file this complaint.  So, cost must be paid by the OP also.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) against the OPs and also OP shall have to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) unpaid cost as per order dated 23-09-2013.

          OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainants for OPs negligent and deficient manner of service in favour of complainant consumer of the OPs.  OPs are jointly and severally directed to comply with the order very strictly within 15(fifteen) days from the date of this order failing which each days delay and also for reluctant attitude of the OPs OPs will severally shall up to pay punitive damages @Rs.300/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.

          Even after then if it is found that OPs are very much reluctant to comply this Forum’s order in that case penal action will be started against the OP and further penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be imposed for implementation of the order with the help of provision of Section 27 of the C.P. Act.