IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/77/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
27.04.18 08.05.18 19.03.19
Complainant: Astasekhar Roychowdhuri
S/O- Late Amaleswar Roychowdhuri,
144/101, A.C.Road, PO- Khagra,
PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742103
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.Branch Manager, HDFC Bank ,
Berhampore Branch
37/A, R.N.Tagore Road,
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
2.Rajdip Dey (Broker ARN-11244)
Karvy, 98, R.N. Tagore Road,
Near Laldeghi, 1st Floor Of Bishnu Abasan,
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : In Person.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Smt. Sarbani Datta.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri. Sambarta Mukherjee.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Astasekhar Roychowdhury (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant has a savings bank account with the OP No.1 along with his wife Ratna Roychowdhury. He issued a cheque worth Rs.2,70,000/- on 07.03.18 in favor of ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund to the OP No.2 but the OP No.2 could not purchase the said mutual fund as the OP No.1 dishonored the cheque on the ground of insufficient fund. On 07.03.18, the Complainant had balance of Rs.3,22,999.02 in his savings account. Moreover, the OP No.1 debited Rs.500/- as cheque bounce charge and Rs.45/- as CGST and Rs.45/- for SGST charges on 08.03.18 from the account of the Complainant. The matter was informed to the OP No.1 by a letter sent through registered post with AD on 17.03.18 but of no result. The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the OP No.1 to refund the said amount of Rs.590/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental pain and harassment.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 13.07.18, contending that the case is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer. It is the case of the OP No.1 that on 07.03.18, the Complainant deposited a MICR clearing cheque amounting Rs.50,000/- at 14:35 hours and the said cheque was effected in the account on 08.03.18 at 20:10 hours. On 08.03.18 at 11:09:20 A.M. a sum of Rs.6030/- was marked hold in type Telebroking Hold for a trading transaction in the subject account on behalf of Smt. Ratna Roychowdhury at the time of clearing transaction of the subject cheque in course of usual clearing rupees at 17:37 hours on 08.03.18 when the subject MICR cheque came to the bank in clearing the need balance in the subject account available as a clear balance was Rs.2,66,969.02/- only due to hold of Rs.6030/- in type Telebroking Hold for a trade transaction in the subject account on behalf of Ratna Roychowdhury. Therefore, the cheque amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was over and above the clear available balance in the account for which the OP bank was unable to process to said transaction on the basis of ‘ No Balance’. There is no negligence or irregularity on part of the OP No.1 and OP No.1 has rightly debited the cheque bouncing charge and CGST and SGST charges as per rules.
The OP No.2 appeared and filed W/V on 31.08.18 contending that the case is not maintainable against the O.P. No.2 for want of cause of action. The O. P. No. 2 deposited the cheque amounting Rs. 2,70,000/- in favour of ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund for investment on 07.03.18 but the Cheque was dishonored due to insufficient fund. The O.P. No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complainant with cost.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 , as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OPs for consideration.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P.No. 2 has not taken part in hearing of argument.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of the complainant, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OPs for consideration.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos. 3&4.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No 1 has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P.No.has not taken part in hearing of argument.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the complainant has no cause of action against the O.P.No.2.
We have gone through the written complaint, xerox copies of documents, written version, evidence of the Complainant and written arguments submitted by the O.P. No.1.
Admittedly the Complainant and his wife Ratna Roychowdhury are joint holders of savings banks account No. 501000223833225 and the said account is with the OP No.1. Admittedly, the Complainant issued a cheque in the name of ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund dt. 07.03.18 amounting Rs.2,70,000/- and was presented before the O.P. No. 1 on 08.03.18.. It is the case of the OP No.1 that the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds but the case of the Complainant is that on 07.03.18 he had sufficient fund of Rs.3,22,999.02/-. The Complainant has filed xerox copies of Pass Book showing transactions and the OP No.1 has filed statement of account. On going through the documents we find that on 07.03.18 the Complainant has balance of Rs. 2,72,999.02/- and the Complainant also deposited a MICR cheque amounting Rs.50,000/- for clearance and the said cheque was cleared on 08.03.18. It also appears from the statement of account submitted by the OP No.1 that Rs.6030/- was hold as per requirement of Ratna Roychowdhury, the joint account holder on 08.03.18. According to the version of the OP No.1 that the MICR cheque amounting Rs.50,000/- was credited to the account of the Complainant on 08.03.18 at 20:10 hours when the said sum came in subject account through clearing transfer of the said cheque from the Drawyee and a sum of Rs.6030/-was marked hold in the subject account on behalf of Smt. Ratna Roychowdhury on 08.03.18 at 11:09:20 A.M. It is the case of the OP No.1 that on 08.03.18 at 17:37 hours in course of usual clearing when the cheque amounting Rs.2,70,000/- came for clearance , it was found that clear balance was Rs.2,66,969.02/-. It is the case of the OP No.1 that the Complainant and his wife Ratna Roychowdhury are in the practice of operating the said account by various modes namely through Cheques, through Net-banking, also over the counter, Debit card etc simultaneously. The Complainant has not denied the said fact. Therefore, it is clear that the Complainant might access to his savings account balance on any date at any time to know the actual balance in their savings bank account. Smt. Ratna Roychowhury is not a party to this case. The statement of account submitted by the OP No.1 goes to show that Rs.6030/- was hold on 08.03.18 by Smt. Ratna Roychowdhury. The OP No.1 has not filed any documents to establish that the MICR cheque amounting Rs.50,000/- was effected on 08.03.18 at 20:10 hours but the OP No.1 has debited the amount of Rs.590/- for cheque return charges, CGST and SGST charges when the balance was Rs.3,22,999.02/-. We find that the OP No.1 debited the amount of Rs.590/- on 08.03.18 as cheque return charges and CGST and SGST charges at the time of return of the cheque when balance was Rs. 3,22,999.02. The OP No.1 has not explained why the OP No.1 dishonoured the Cheque amounting Rs. 2,70,000/- on the ground of insufficient fund and deducted the said amount of Rs.590/- on 08.03.18 and 09.03.18 when the balance was Rs.3,22,999.02/-. The plea of minimum Monthly Average Balance taken by the O.P. No.1 has no leg to stand on. The W.V. filed by the O.P. No. 1 has no bearing with the Statement of accounts filed by the O.P.No. 1. As per W.V. of the O.P. No.1 the Complainant had Rs. 2,66,969.02 only due to hold of Rs. 6,030/-in type telebroking hold for a trading transaction of Ratna Roychowdhury but the statement of accounts submitted by the O.P. No . 1 goes to show that balance was Rs. 3,22,999.02 when the cheque return charge and CGST and SGST charges were deducted on 08.03.18.
Therefore, we hold that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service . We think that the O.P. No. 1 may be directed to refund Rs. 590/- to the Complainant and to pay Rs. 4,000/- as Compensation for deficiency in service and to Pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant. The complaint against the O.P. No. 2 may be dismissed for want of cause of action.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 27.04.18 and admitted on 08.05.18. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/77/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 with cost of Rs.1,000/- and dismissed on contest against the O.P. No. 2 without cost.
The O.P. No.1 be directed to refund Rs. 590/- to the Complainant and to pay Rs. 4,000/- as Compensation for deficiency in service and to Pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant by sixty days from the date of this order i.d. the O.P. No. 1 shall have to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on Rs. 5,590/- w.e.f. the date of this order till realization.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
