STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 123 of 2016

State Bank of India, Pakri Branch, P.S- Nawadah Ara, District- Bhojpur through the Branch Manager

                                                                                                                                                         … Opposite Party/Appellant

Versus

1.  Anup Kumar, Son of Mahandra Nath Pandey, R/o- Mohalla- Kanakpuri, Eastern Gate of College, PS- Nawadah Ara, District Bhojpur through the Branch Manager

2.  Yes Bank Ltd. Plot no. 11/48, Shopping Centre, Diplomatic Enclave, Macha Market, Chanakyapur, New Delhi    

                                                                                                                                                      …. Complainant/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Sunil Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent no. 1: None

Counsel for the Respondent no. 2: Adv. Kaushtubh & Adv. Riffat Fatima

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 02.08.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of  appellant /Opposite Party no. 1 State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Nawadah Ara for setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bhojpur, Ara in Consumer Complaint case no. 30 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has directed appellant/opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant had purchased an Air ticket of Spice Jet Airlines for traveling but due to some reason his ticket was cancelled and Spice Jet Airline send a cheque of Rs. 5,184/- drawn on Yes Bank being cheque no. 004313 dated 01.12.2011.
3. Complainant deposited cheque in his account maintained with State Bank of India, Pakari Bazar branch for its clearance but cheque amount was not credited. He approached Branch Manager for clearance of its cheque but no step were taken by State Bank officials for its clearance and credit. Complainant send a legal notice on 03.07.2013 but no response was received from opposite parties. Complainant thereafter filed complaint case in the District Consumer Forum, Ara for payment of cheque amount with interest and grant of compensation and cost of litigation. Notices were issued to opposite party no. 1 and 2 and they appeared and filed their written statement.
4. State Bank of India (O.P. no. 1) filed its written statement in which it was stated that they send the cheque to their nearest branch of Yes Bank by speed post on 22.01.2012 but same was not returned after clearance as such postal department was responsible for non payment of cheque amount, which has not been made party in this case.
5. Yes Bank (O.P. no. 2) also filed its written statement in which they stated that they were not liable to pay the cheque amount as the cheque was never presented before them for payment.
6. In support of his claim complainant produced documentary evidence i.e Passbook of saving account of S.B.I, deposit slip dated 28.12.2011 of cheque, letter dated 12.12.2011 of Spice Jet payment advice and Legal Notice.
7. Opposite party no. 1/State Bank India also produced documentary evidence i.e collection enquiry of cheque, Dispatch register regarding registered letter of S.B.I, (Pakari Branch), EMS speed post of post office.
8. The District Consumer Commission held that it is an admitted fact that complainant had deposited the cheque on 28.12.2011 in his saving bank account maintained in State Bank of India (O.P. no. 1)  which sent said cheque for clearance to the nearest branch of Yes Bank by speed post on 23.02.2012 but thereafter neither the cheque was returned nor cheque amount was credited.
9. The District Consumer Forum after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record held O.P. no. 1/State Bank of India to be deficient in service and directed for payment of compensation amount for physical and mental harassment as well as cost of litigation.
10. Aggrieved by judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 passed in complaint case no. 30 of 2013 appellant/State Bank of India has preferred this appeal on following grounds:

1. For that the learned DCF, Bhojpur ought to have held that the appellant Bank has not committed any deficiency in service on their part as they sent the cheque for collection immediately after receipt of it and so they acted bonafidely in performing their service in accordance with law.
2. For that the learned DCF ought to have held that the complainant had not acted perfectly in impleading the post office as one of the party in the case as the cheque sent by the Bank was loss in transit only due to deficiency in service on part by the post office.
3. For that, at any rate, the compensation and legal cost imposed on the appellant to be payable by them to the complainant is highly unreasonable, excessive and exorbitant.

11. Heard the parties.
12. District Consumer Commission has relied upon the judgment and order of National Commission passed in case of Canara Bank Vs. Sudhir Ahuja reported in 2007 (1) CPJ (NC) 1 in which under similar circumstances grant of compensation and cost of litigation was upheld by the National Commission. Similar view were expressed in case of (Sri A.P. Bopanna Vs. Kodagu District Cooperative Central Bank,  2014-JX (Con) 0-64 and in case of Saju Stephen Vs. Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. (2018) (2) CPJ (NC) 563.
13. In said view of the matter the judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bhojpur, Ara in Consumer Complaint case no. 30 of 2013 does not require any interference, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, amount of compensation being on higher side same is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- to be paid within 60 days from the receipt of order passed by this Commission failing which interest @8% shall become payable on compensation amount i.e Rs. 25,000/- as well as on cost of litigation i.e Rs. 2,000/-.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                                   (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                                    President

Md. Fariduzzama