District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Sambalpur
CC No. 9/2017
Trilochan Kumar Dash
S/O Dhruba Chandra Dash
Occupation-Stampvendor, Sambalpur
R/O Bajarang Vihar Putibandh
Po/Ps-Dhanupali,Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha ………......Complainant
Vrs.
1. Branch Manager State Bank of India, Main Branch
At/Po- Kacheri Road, Sambalpur,
Ps-Town, Dist- Sambalpur
2)Post Master
Head Post Office, Sambalpur
At/Po-Sambalpur, Ps- Town
Dist- Sambalpur, 768001,Odisha ………. ...........opposite Party
For Complainant : Sri A.K.Panda, A.K. Panigrahi & K.C. Sarangi
For O.P.s No.1 & 2 & Others : L.K.Panigrahi
PRESENT:- SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT
SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER
Date of Order:19/07/2019
SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER
- The Case at hand instituted under its complaint case No. 9 of 2017 brought at the instance of one Trilochan Kumar Dash, The Complainant relates to the matter in deficiency in service committed by the SBI main branch Sambalpur, The O.P. No.1. Here, post master Head Post Office Sambalpur happens to be the O.P. No.2.
- The claim of the complainant in brief is as follows.
- The Complainant is the account holder of the state Bank of India main branch Sambalpur and his savings account No. is 36266871504. The Said SBI Account contained an amount of Rs. 5, 70,302.25 as on Dt. 25.01.2017. The Complainant presented a cheque amounting to Rs. 1, 05,000/- (One lakh five thousand rupees) for payment of the same in favour of the post master at Post Office Sambalpur investment of the afore said amount in National saving certificate. The Cheque was presented before the O.P. No.1 on dated 24.01.2017 but the cheque was dishonoured by the concerned bank on dt. 25.01.2017 as a result of which an amount Rs. 460 (Four hundred sixty) was also deducted from the complainant’s account in existence of the fact that the said account contained Rs. 5,703,02.25/-. That apart the O.P. No.2 did also charge Rs. 50 towards clearance of the cheque.
- Thus, the complainant challenges such actions of the O.P. No.1 as monopoly and therefore calls in question such inaction of the O.P. No.1 in not providing proper service but to create a third litigation over the matter burdening mental agony and harassment to the complainant and therefore prays to direct the O.P. No.1 to pay Rs. 510 towards deduction of the said amounts, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, hardship harassment and inconveniences and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation charges.
- Heard the parties concerned, went through the written submission extended from the side of O.P. No. 1 and 2.
- On consideration of the matter we find that the action of O.P. No.2 is found to be justified but the action in dealing with the matter by the O.P. No.1 is found to be altogether unlogical and illegal. Explanations in the written submission are not proper in existence of the fact that the complainant did own an amount of Rs. 5, 70, 302.25/-. Rather such actions of the bank are found to be whimsical and arbitrary. In the instance case the cheque issued by the Complainant was dishonoured on presentation even though there was sufficient balance in the account of the petitioner. It is but natural that the Complainant certainly faced humiliation and loss of reputation on account of dishonour of the said cheque. The action of the O.P. No.1 in handing the issue leads to gross deficiency in service and therefore it deserve to be punished accordingly. The case is hereby allowed.
- The O.P. No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 510/- towards deduction amount by it and that of the O.P. No.2.
- The O.P. No.1 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2000/- for mental agony and harassment.
The afore said amount has to be paid by the O.P. No.1 within a
period of 30 days from passing of the order failing which the decreetal amount will carry an interest of 9% from the date of order till its actual payment.
Sd/-
SMT. S.TRIPATHY
Sd/- PRESIDENT.
SHRI A.P.Mund, President I agree.
Sd/-
Dictated and corrected by me.
MEMBER
