BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM.
KAMRUP
C.C.No.84/2016
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora,M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S -President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy
Director, FCS & CA - Member
Shri Haren Das - Complainant
S/0 Shri Bhubaneshwar Das,
16, Bye Lane No-1, Srimantapur L.P.School Road,
Srimantapur, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-32,
Kamrup,(Metro), Assam
-vs-
I) Branch Manager, Gauhati High Court
Extension Branch Of State Bank of India, Guwahati -Opposite party
II) Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Guwahati Main Branch, Panbazar,Guwahati-781001
Appearance:
The petitioner in person appeared for the case & none appeared for the opposite parties.
Date of argument:- 12/11/2018, 17/01/2019 & 13/11/2020.
Date of judgment: - 18/11/2020
JUDGEMENT
1) This is a proceeding U/S- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is a complaint filed by one Shri Haren Das , an account holder of State Bank of India, Gauhati High Court Extension Branch , Guwahati against the Gauhati High Court Extension Branch Of State Bank of India and Branch Manager, State Bank of India , Guwahati Main Branch, Panbazar.
2) The allegation made by the complainant is that he is a practicing lawyer at Guwahati and availing the service of opp. party no-1 & 2 . According to the complainant he had an account no- 10823989742 with opp. parties for last 15 years . His transaction for long period of time has been narrated in the complaint petition and alleged that on 11/08/2016 complainant updated his passbook where in the balance amount was shown as Rs. 15,841.51/- . The complainant issued a cheque no- 024399 dtd 05/09/2016 in favour of Maria’s Public School for amounting to Rs. 11,240/-.
3) It is alleged that between 11/08/2016 to 05/09/2016 the complainant had not done any transaction with the opp. party , but surprisingly on 06/09/2016 complainant received a message on his mobile phone that an amount of Rs.345/- was debited towards the charge of dishonor of cheque no- 024399 and account balance was Rs.9,246.51/- . At this point the complainant become surprised & make an enquiry & came to know that the cheque was dishonoured due to SI Hold (A technical term) and asked the complainant to visit the opp. party no-2 . The complainant accordingly went to opp. party no-2 and enquired the matter & after explaining that since 11/08/2016 till 05/09/2016 there having no transaction the aforesaid cheque ought not to have dishonoured and Rs.345/- should not have been deducted from the account of the complainant . With the above grievances the complainant went to the bank authority and not been satisfied felt that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party .
4) It is alleged that complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 11,240/- to the Maria’s Public School authority against school fees of his child and due to dishonoured of the cheque by the bank authority the complainant felt humiliated. It is further stated that payment of school fees by way of cheque has been denied by the school authority & accepted online payment or cash . This is also one of the reason of humiliation caused by the opp. party for their deficiency in service. Accordingly complainant came up with the present petition claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
5) The opp. party contested the proceeding by filing W/S stating that before filing the complaint , the complainant had not made any allegation against the bank about any deficiency of service . It is admitted by the opp. party in their W/S that the complainant had an outstanding amount of Rs. 15841.53/- in his savings bank account as on 06/09/2016 but the bank authority found that there was a hold of Rs. 6250/- against EMI of his car loan for the month of November, 2015 which was left the clear fund available in his savings bank account at Rs. 9591.51/- on the day of clearing . The fully automated clearing process verified the available clear fund & returned the cheque for being unable to execute the debit transaction of Rs. 11240/- & also charged Rs.345/- for dishonor of the cheque from the complainant’s account.
6) One of the contention made in the W/S that bank authority verified the cheque and verified the record and found that there was a repayment of loan in the month of October ,2015 which was carried over to the month of November, 2015 and the complainant made the deposit of Rs. 6,000/- on 03/11/2015 and recovery amount of Rs. 6,250/- got executed for the month of October ,2015 and car loan balance came to Rs.318/- which has been liquidated by repaying the balance.
7) It has been pleaded by the opp. party that hold of Rs. 6,250/- for EMI of November ,2015 created through automated standing order process remained active over the savings account balance of the complainant , but after a report the bank authority removed the hold on 07/09/2016 for Rs.11,440/- vide cheque no- 024440 . It is stated that for the reasons stated above the cheque no- 024399 dtd. 05/09/2016 was dishonoured and there was no negligence or lapse on the part of the opp. party bank . It is pleaded that however the bank has got compensation policy for such type of deficiency and bank have compensated for the inconvenience caused to the complainant is an inadvertent mistake in the S.I. Hold ( a technical term) which did not get wipe out during the closure of car loan account . The opp. party have submitted related documents in favour of the plea taken in the W/S including SBI Compensation Policy ( Banking Services ),2016.
8) With the above pleading of the parties it become now necessary to concentrate our discussion on the following issues only.
i) Whether holding of the account and dishonouring a cheque without verification of official record by the bank authority is deficiency of service towards the customer / complainant ?
ii) Whether for dishonour of the cheque have humiliated the complainant and payment of meager amount of Rs.100/- as compensation under SBI Compensation Policy ( Banking Services ) ,2016 is sufficient and if not whether complainant is entitled for compensation and to what extent ?
Issue No-i
Decision & reasons for decision
9) From the written statement and complaint petition it is very clear that a cheque of the complainant was dishonoured as alleged which has been later on cleared by the bank authority. This part of the pleading of the opp. party is confirmed through evidence of opp. party no-1 & 2 namely Gobinda Ch Dutta , Deputy Manager, Guwahati Branch Of State Bank of India, Guwahati. He was cross examined by the complainant and it reveals that on 11/08/2016 till 05/09/2016 there was account balance amounting to Rs. 15,841.51/- in the account of the complainant .
10) From the evidence on record it is found that Ext-8 undisputedly reflects the fact that on 11/08/2016 there was a balance of Rs. 15,841.51/- . There is no such evidence from opp. party that complainant withdraw any amount during the intervening period between 11/08/2016 to 05/09/2016. Ext-8(2) is a statement showing the transaction that after 11/08/2016 there was a transaction on 06/09/2016 which was in respect of dishonour of cheque showing SI Hold RM 6250 and debited an amount of Rs.345/- and balance amount remains Rs.15,496.51/- . If we belief this two document then it is very apparent from the evidence on record that dishonouring a cheque by the bank authority without proper verification is a negligence on the part of the bank concerned . As such we are of the view that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party and accordingly the issue is decided in favour of the complainant.
Issue No-ii
11) To arrive at a decision on issue no-ii we have scrutinized one of his witness Sanjib Hazarika who supported the case of the complainant stating that he made enquiry about the dishonour of cheque and was aware of the entire incident . So far evidence of the complainant is concerned, it is found that he is confident enough for deposing bank loan including the EMI for the month of October, 2016 amounting to Rs. 6,250/-.
12) We have carefully perused Annexure-2 , which reveals that car loan was closed on 24/11/2015. If there was any defect in payment of EMI then the document issued on 24/11/2017 ought have reflected the same on the statement of account . Here question comes why at subsequent stage on 06/09/2016 the cheque was dishonoured for the reason of default of car loan which has already been closed. The technical word -SI Hold is not comfortable and not familiar for the common customer and internal technical default ought not been a reason for causing harassment and agony to the customer of this kind. Therefore , we are of the view that opp. party is negligent in dealing with the complainant.
13) Secondly, the complainant issued a cheque to the school authority for payment of school fees and dishonouring of cheque have caused humiliation before the school authority and his children. The amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 100/- for 7 days delay in clearing the cheque is not at all justified. However, we are not suppose to go for discussion on the SBI Compensation Policy ( Banking Services ) ,2016 in total which is not a part of our pleading and discussion. However, as per Rule -4.9 provision for compensation for clearance of local cheque if considered even then it appears to us that delay of clearing the cheque after 7 days of submission is found to be insufficient of service towards the complainant for which he had suffered humiliation & school authority have stopped payment through cheque for which complainant is entitled for compensation.
14) Our thoughtful consideration on the entire issue is that the bank was the custodian of the hard earned money of the complainant from where he managed to make the payment for his children’s school fees, car installment etc. But when after availability of fund on the account of the complainant he was deprived from utilizing his hard earned money atleast for 7 days has put him in mental agony and was harassed for moving to the bank and deprived him from making payment through cheque for his children’s school fees. The deficiency in service on the part of the opp. party have caused suffering to the complainant and hence he is entitled for compensation.
15) In our considered view an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the cost of proceeding to the tune of Rs.10,000/- will be fair and justified for the end of justice for the reason of deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party.
16) Accordingly , issue is decided in favour of the complainant and opp. party is directed to make the payment within 45 days from the date of judgment, failing which opp. party will have to pay an interest @12% on the awarded amount till realization. Both the opp. parties are jointly and severally liable for payment.
Given under our hand and seal today on the 18th day of November , 2020.
Smti Archana Deka Lahkar Shri Jamatul Islam Shri A.F.A.Bora
(Member) (Member) (President)
DCF,Kamrup DCF,Kamrup DCF,Kamrup
