DATE OF DISPOSAL: 29.07.2024

PER:  SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of her grievance before this Commission.

            2. The complainant is maintaining one saving account bearing account number 37417326234 with the O.P.No.1 Bank with cheque, ATM card facility and also with Internet Banking facility. The complainant has had issued a cheque of Rs.2,20,000/-on 25.01.2021 and presented it to the op no.3 Indian Bank, Baguiati Branch Kolkata for collection on the same day. But said cheque was bounced back which was intimated by the op no.3 to the complainant on 28.01.2021. The reason for bounced back of said cheque was ‘Refer to drawer’’. On the date of bounced, the complainant has sufficient balance in her account to honour and the cheque was in order in all the vital aspects like signature, date, etc. Due to shortage of time, the complainant managed to go to USA and faced mental agony and harassment for the reason of financial problem and with suffering for alternate arrangements in such period.

The fund was meant for use in her ongoing trip to USA on the following days. The Indian Bank, Baguiati Branch on dated 28.01.2021 intimated to the complainant the said cheque bounced back with the reason “Refer to drawer”. The complainant had sufficient balance in her account. After return back from USA the complainant went to SBI and asked for the real cause of cheque return. The Bank had levied an amount of Rs.177/- as cheque returned charges and debited her account for the same. The complainant also questioned SBI Hi tech branch authority to provide her fault for such penalty. The Branch officials could not find any lacuna and advised her to give a written letter for the same. On dated 06.10.2021 the complainant had given the required letter which was duly acknowledged by the Branch Manager of SBI Hi tech. The complainant followed up further by email to Branch’s controlling office on darted 26.10.2021, 10.11.2021 and 13.01.2022. Though the office initially assured her to take up and resolve the issue, in facet did nothing and preferred to remain silent to her reminders. Being aggrieved, the complainant took the shelter of RBI Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar. RBI sent her an intimation of closure of the case by email dated 25.02.2022. The Ombudsman unilaterally resolved the issue stating that “the grievance raised in the complaint has been resolved the issue stating that “the grievance raised in the complaint has been resolved through conciliation or mediation by the Ombudsman as per clause 14(9) (a) (b) of RBI integrated Ombudsman scheme 2021 and the complaint closed and it is not appealable”.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for harassment and mental agony in the best interests of justice.

            3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the O.Ps.

            4. The O.P.No.1 & 2 filed written version through his advocate. The averments made in the complaint petition are not all true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of such of those allegations. The O.P.No.1 is the Branch Manager of the Bank and in his official capacity being the principal officer of the Bank, is representing both the O.Ps and filing this written version on behalf of both.  The complainant is maintaining one saving account bearing account number 37417326234 with this O.P.Bank with cheque, ATM card facility and also with Internet Banking facility. The complainant opened an account with the O.P.No.1 Bank, in which the threshold limit for cheque payment was fixed Rs.10,000/-, which is as per the annual income declared by the complainant in her account opening form. The complainant has drawn a cheque of Rs.2,20,000/- and deposited the same cheque in the O.P.No.3 Bank for collection. When the cheque was processed, which was exceeding the threshold limit, the processing centre of this O.P. i.e. State Bank of India referred the cheque to the O.P.No.1 in OLRR alert in time and ultimately the Processing Centre return the cheque. Be it be noted here that prevent fraudulent transactions and with an intention to protect the interest of the customers, this O.P.Bank has adopted some internet mechanism, where by withdrawal of high value cheques/instruments exceeding the threshold limit are re-verified at branch level and only on receipt of conformation, the cheque/instrument is cleared. The cheque was issued by the complainant in her favour only with an intention to transfer an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to her other account maintained with Indian Bank. She could have availed other options such as, transfer of funds from SBI account to Indian Bank account through NEFT, RTGS and net banking also. So when other alternative modes of transfer of funds from one account to other was available, the further allegations regarding financial problems and sufferings faced by the complainant is not correct and a figment of imagination for filing this complaint petition. When the complainant brought the above incident to the notice of the O.P.No.1, vide her complaint dated 06.10.2021, it has verified the matter and then immediately refunded the Rs.177/-the cheque bouncing charges which was collected by the system from the complainant’s account in a routine manner after the return of the cheque to the complainant’s account. The matter has been resolved and the Ombudsman, RBI has also closed the instant issue, then the complainant should not have filed this case by wasting more valuable time of the Hon’ble Commission as well as of the O.P.Bank. The instant case should also be rejected on the principles of Res-judicata, as the claim of the complainant was also heard and after that closed by the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar.  By depositing the instant cheque in the O.P.No.3 Bank for collection, the complainant had tried to transfer the amount lying in her State Bank Account to the Indian Bank Account. But the above fact itself did not constitute any ground for any financial hardship or other harassment of her. The complainant could have used the money lying in here State Bank saving account, to do any financial transaction or for transfer any money to any one or for purchase of anything etc. either through online mode or through her ATM card etc. So the complainant has not suffered any specific monetary loss or other harassment etc. in the matter. The complainant has not suffered any specific monetary loss, reputational loss or has not faced any mental agony or harassment etc. in the matter, which was happened due to issuance of cheque over the threshold limit and Branch could not attend the OLRR alert  due to some technical and connectively issued and further the Branch has already refunded the cheque bouncing charges and the Ombudsman has also closed the matter after due verification of the matter, so as such the claim of the complainant regarding the compensation and cost of litigation should be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of the ombudsman. Hence the O.P.No.1 & 2 prayed to dismiss the case with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.

            5. On the date of hearing advocate for complainant and O.P.No.1 & 2 is present and the Commission heard argument at length. The Commission perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument and documents available in the case record.

On perusal of the case record minutely, it reveals that the complainant adduced in her affidavit dated:03.10.2023 about resolution of grievance within five days of filling of the complaint at OP no.1 and amounting of Rs.177/- were refunded by the said branch to her account. In view of the customer grievance redressal policy-2019, the op no.1 has taken up steps to resolve the complaint within stipulated period of 3 weeks. There was no allegation against the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 specifically.  In the instant case, the OP no.4 has played no role to provide any service to the complainant on consideration of payment. It acts in accordance to its own statutory provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Hence, the op no.4 is not a proper party.  It is manifest from the above factual aspects of the case record, the complainant miserably failed to substantiate the deficiency in services of any of the opposite parties. Hence the Commission dismissed the complaint against all the opposite parties summarily. No order as to cost.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Order.

Pronounced on 29.07.2024.