West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/120/2015

Arfan SK, S/O Najar Ali SK - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Joygopal Das

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

The petitioner filed a complaint stating that he took loan from West Bengal Minorities Development and Finance Corporation (WBMDFC) Suri Branch for his business. As per loan agreement the petitioner issued 20 cheques of UCo. Bank, Kirnahar Branch to WBMDFC, Suri Branch Office for repayment of quarterly installment and all the cheques had been honoured. But WBMDFC Suri Branch has claimed Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner in excess to the total amount of installments for over dues. According to the petitioner WBMDFC, Suri Branch presented the cheques issued by the petitioner through their banker, Union Bank of India, Suri Branch at due time for encashment. The cheques of quarter to 1 to 11 were encashed in due time. The cheques of quarter No. 12 to 18 were not encashed at due time by U.Co Bank, Kirnahar Branch. On the date of 18^th quarter all the 7 cheques were encashed in a single day. Inspite of proper rendering services by WBMDFC the O.P U. Co. Bank and Union Bank miserably failed to perform their duties. As a result the petitioner is suffering serious financial loss of Rs. 10,000/-, as well as injury, harassment and mental agony. Subsequently the reputation and goodwill of the petitioner has been hampered before WBMDFC. The petitioner now fails to obtain further loan from WBMDFC next time. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the case to get proper relief.

O.P No. 1 and 2 appeared and contested the case by filing separate written version. They stated in their written version that the averments made in different paras of the complaint are not true and the complainant is bound to prove the same. O.P No.1 also stated that WBMDFC presented the cheques to their banker, O.P No.2 in due time are not true.

The WBMDFC, Suri Branch has been impleaded as O.P No.3 after amendment of the complaint. O.P No.3 appeared but did not contest.

The petitioner filed certain documents in favour of his complaint. O.Ps did not file any

Upon pleadings of the parties following points are to be considered for discussion.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not?
3. Is complainant entitled to relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

All the points being interlinked each other are taken together for discussion.

The petitioner took loan of Rs. 75240/- from WBMDFC on 07.04.2010. The loan was payable quarterly in 20 installments. The petitioner deposited 20 postdated cheques of Rs 4427/- each to WBMDFC, Suri Branch as per loan agreement. WBMDFC, Suri Branch has encashed the cheques through Union Bank, Suri Branch from the petitioner’s banker, U.Co. Bank, Kirnahar Branch. All the three O.Ps are service provider to the petitioner and the petitioner is a consumer under them as per Consumer Protection Act.

The petitioner repaid the loan amount within stipulated time but O.P No. 3 WBMDFC has claimed Rs. 10,000/- as interest for irregular payment by the petitioner. The petitioner stated in his complaint, evidence in chief and also in argument that he paid the postdated cheques at the time of filing requisites as per agreement between them. So, the delay in encashment of the cheques was due to the negligence of O.P No.1 and 2 i.e. U.Co. Bank, Kirnahar Branch and Union Bank, Suri Branch.

Now the question who is liable for irregular encashment for repayment of loan. The repayment schedule issued by O.P No.3 shows that the date of 1^st installment of repayment of loan started on 30.09.2010 and then the next 19 installments were on every three months after i.e. quarterly installment upto 30.06.2015. 20 postdated cheques were issued mentioning the dates 30.09.2010, 31.12.2010, 31.03.2011 and so on. It was the duty of O.P No.3 to present the cheques on due dates. The passbook of the petitioner shows that the amount of Rs. 5476/- of cheque being No. 518641 dated 30.09.2010 was transferred and cleared by U.Co. Bank Kirnahar Branch on 06.01.2011, inspite of sufficient balance was in the petitioner’s banker on due date. The cheques dated 31.12.2010, 31.03.2011, 30.06.2011, 30.09.2011, 31.12.2011, 31.03.2012 had been presented and cleared on 01.02.2011, 03.05.2011, 11.07.2011, 22.11.2011, 10.02.2012 and 24.04.2012 respectively. The passbook also shows that the disputed 7 cheques of quarter 12^th to 18^th had been presented for payment on a particular dated i.e. on 07.08.2015. All the seven cheques being No. 518652, 518654 to 518656 and 518658 to 518660 dated 07.08.2015 had been issued on a single date. This means that O.P No.1, Banker of the petitioner and O.P No.2, Banker of WBMDFC presented the cheques for payment and cleared as and when these were available to their hands.

Further the Forum notices that the petitioner paid last two installments in cash to WBMDFC Suri

Branch on 27.05.2015 vide receipt No. 610414.

O.P No.3 WBMDFC did not contest the case. It is not clear to the Forum whether O.P No.3 received 20 postdated cheques at a time from the petitioner. If it is true that the petitioner issued these cheques in a single date then why the petitioner paid last two installments in cash, who issued the 7 cheques of quarter 12^th to 18^th on a single date i.e. on 07.08.2015 and were encashed on the same date.

It appears from the passbook that the petitioner was not alert about payment of installments in time. There was no sufficient balance in his bank to honour the postdated cheques of 3^rd, 4^th, 7^th and 8^th quarter installments in due time.

From the above discussion it is clear that the petitioner has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of O.P No. 1 and 2.

As per complaint the petitioner has been filed consumer dispute case for redressal of his grievance only against O.P No.1 and 2. But he fails to prove his case. Even there was no evidence to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 3.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

                                                that C.F case No. 120/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.Ps

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.