| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 11.09.2014. DATE OF S/R : 28.11.2014. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 03.11.2015. Smt. Mana Dey, wife of Sri Buddhadev Dey, residing at South City Residency, Hanskhali Pole, near Maa Sarada Eye Care, P.O. D.S. Lane, P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah, PIN 711109. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT. 1. Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Thanamakua Branch ( 739 ), Thanamakua, Andul Road, Bakultala, P.O. D.S. Lane, Howrah – 711109. 2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Howrah Railway Station Branch ( 5702 ), District Howrah, West Bengal, PIN 711101.………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak . F I N A L O R D E R - This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Smt. Mana Dey, praying for directing the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to make payment of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service on their part and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that she had savings bank A/c no. 20823273054 in the Allahabad Bank, Thanamakua Branch, o.p. no. 1, and on 28.9.2013 she issued account payee cheque to one Debasish Sengupta A/c. no. 11126771822 of Rs. 30,000/- and the cheque no. being 156465 of the o.p. no. 1. The cheque was deposited for encashment on 01.10.2013 in the S.B.I. Railway Howrah Station Branch, o.p. no. 2, but unfortunately the cheque was returned to the depositor Mr. Sengupta on 03.10.2013 with remarks “fund insufficient”. Mr. Sengupta informed the matter to the petitioner and claimed the amount of dishonoured cheque. The petitioner was surprised and enquired about his bank account but the o.p. 1 informed that the cheque was not presented before them for encashment through S.B.I. and so no question of dishonouring of cheque arises. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, S.B.I. Howrah Railway Station Branch, on 24.01.2014 through her advocate and S.B.I. on 26.02.2014 replied to the complainant regarding the insufficient fund of the complainant they wrote to CCPC Kolkata Branch of S.B.I. The petitioner had sufficient fund in his savings bank account of o.p. no. 1 but due to deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 the unfortunate incident took place which lowered down the prestige of the petitioner before Mr. Sengupta as well as before the society and she suffered mental agony and harassment. It is nothing but sheer negligence on the part of the o.ps. for which they must pay compensation to the petitioner as well as cost of litigation.
- The o.p. no. 1, Allahabad Bank, Thanamakua Branch, contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the case is not maintainable and also it is barred by limitation. They further submitted that the return memo has been issued by the S.B.I. and not by the o.p. no. 1 before which the cheque was not at all presented as such there is no involvement of the o.p. no. 1 in this case. They further submitted that the copy of the letter issued by o.p. no. 1 is not enclosed as no such cheque return letter was issued by o.p. no. 1 to S.B.I. / o.p. no. 2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no. 1 and so the case is liable to be dismissed against them.
- The o.p. no. 2, S.B.I., Howrah Railway Station Branch, appeared in the case on 28.11.2014 and filed written version stating that the cheque bearing no. 156465 dated 28.09.2013 of Allahabad Bank, Thanamakua Branch, amounting to Rs. 30,000/- of Mrs. Mana Dey and presented by Debasish Sengupta at their branch and the cheque was sent to CCPC, Kolkata, i.e., Centralized Cheque Clearanc Centre for clearing and the cheque was returned with the reason “insufficient balance” by C.C.P.C. Kolkata. They enquired the matter and came to know that C.C.P.C. Kolkata returned the cheque to the drawee bank.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether the petition is barred by limitation ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS : - All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of her case, the petitioner filed affidavit in chief stating that she issued the cheque bearing no. 156465 dated 28.09.2013 amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in favour of Debasish Sengupta and the cheque was returned to her by the S.B.I. Howrah Railway Station Branch with remarks “fund insufficient” though at the relevant time she had more than Rs. 54,833/- to her credit in the Allahabad Bank, Thanamakua Branch, on which she issued the cheque. This Forum perused the original cheque along with the memo showing “fund insufficient” and the statement of Allahabad Bank, Thanamakua Branch, also confirming the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time she had over Rs. 54,000/- to her credit in her saving bank account and all these documents proved the fact that the dishonoured of cheque was not at her fault rather it was due to negligence on the part of the o.p. banks. Now going through the other documents being the letter of petitioner through her advocate to SBI Howrah Railway Branch and the reply of the o.p. no. 2, Howrah Railway Branch, dated 26.02.2014 showing that the reply of S.B.I. as per Para 1 was not at all a correct one because the cheque was issued on 28.9.2013 but the SBI wrote in their reply that the cheque was issued on 28.9.2012. The SBI further stated that the cheque was presented on 01.10.2013 and so the cheque was invalid as per R.B.I.’s norms and they sent the cheque to their centralized cheque clearing centre. Such a statement as seen in the reply of S.B.I. dated 26.02.2014 is palpably wrong because on scrutiny of the cheque it is noticed that the cheque was issued on 28.9.2013 and never 28.9.2012 and so the cheque was never invalid one as per the R.B.I. norms. However, it is noticed from the cheque as well as the remarks memo that there was insufficient fund but in support of the same there is no document placed by the S.B.I. in the form of a memo of insufficient fund issued by Allahabad Bank to S.B.I. and thus making the o.p. no. 2 liable for their negligence in the case. In their written version, the o.p. no. 1 submitted that the cheque was never presented before them and there is no question of returning the same. They challenged the action of S.B.I., Howrah Railway Station Branch, which failed to attach a copy of letter by Allahabad Bank that there was insufficient fund. Rather the o.p. no. 1 categorically submitted that the cheque was not presented to them and so they got no involvement in this case. This Forum heard the counsels of both sides and found that the S.B.I. failed to submit sufficient documents before this Forum that they had no negligence in the instant case rather their negligence is appearance on the face document. They admitted that they got the cheque and sent the same to Centralized Cheque Clearing Centre which sent to the drawee bank but no document coming from S.B.I. / o.p. no. 2 that the o.p. no. 1 returned the cheque with remarks insufficient fund and thus making the o.p. no. 2 responsible for the latches and deficiency on the part of the o.p. no. 2, S.B.I., which caused pain and agony to the petitioner who managed her prestige by making cash payment then and there as is her case being corroborated and confirmed by her affidavit as well as documents. The o.p. no. 2 simply filed one document written by S.B.I., Howrah Railway Station Branch, to the A.G.M, S.B.I., C.C.P.C., Kolkata, about the cheque and the C.C.P.C. Chief Manager replied that the cheque was returned to the drawee bank i.e., Allahabad Bank. But no supporting documents that the o.p. no. 1 Allahabad Bank opined that there was insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. Thus on scrutiny of all the available evidence this Forum finds that the S.B.I. / o.p. no. 2 is responsible for such deficiency in service for which the petitioner suffered and also she is entitled to compensation as she proved her case.
In the result, the claim case succeeds. Court fee paid is correct. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 496 of 2014 ( HDF 496 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 2 and dismissed against o.p. no. 1, Allahabad Bank, without costs. The petitioner is entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs and the o.p. no. 2, S.B.I., Howrah Railway Station Branch, is to pay the above compensation and costs being Rs. 5,000/- in total to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order failing the amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization after the expiry of the schedule date and also the petitioner would be at liberty to file execution case. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( B. D. Nanda ) President, C.D.R.F., Howrah. | |
