IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                CASE No.  CC/112/2015.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

                19.08.15                                 03.09.15                                                13.08.15

Complainant: Sri Debesh Chandra Ghosh Roy,

                        s/o Late Sudhir Chandra Ghosh Roy,

                        38/4, Nirupama Devi Road,

                         P.S.+ P.O. + Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742101.

                                       -Vs-

Opposite Party: Branch Manager, United  Bank of India,

                  Berhampore Gorabazar Branch,

                  P.S.+ P.O. + Dist-Murshidabad,

                  Pin-742101 and 2 others

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                  : Sri. S.S.Dhar

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party  No.1&2 : Sri. Subhash Saha.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party  No.3      : Sri. Joydeep Misra.

   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.

            The gist of the complaint case is as follows :

        The complainant has an S/b account with the O.P. No.1  being No. 0822010191890. The complainant issued an A/C payee Cheque in his favour in another account lying with the O.P. No. 3 mentioning A/C no. 430810110000366 on 01.06.15  and came to know from the O.P. no. 3 that the Cheque had not been encashed with the comment “ alteration not allowed “.There was no alteration  and the complainant issued the cheque in his favour . There was no chance of fraud and the O.P. No. 1 strikes out the column ’’ require drawer’s authentication’ in Annex. D. The O.P. no. 1 may ask for authentication  of the complainant by intimating over his cell phone. The O.P. Nos 1&2 deducted Rs. 92/ and the O.p. No. 3 deducted Rs. 100/- for return of the cheque. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 192/- from the OPs  and Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony.

        The OPs contested the case by filing W.V. on 25.05.18 and 08.12.17 interalia denying the material allegations against the OPs , contending that the cheque dated 01.06.15 was dishonoured as there was no authentication in the altereation of date in the cheque. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

        On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

          Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. 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. Advocates for the OPs submit that the Complainant is not a consumer.

        On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

        Point No.2

        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 complainant submits that the Complainant issued a cheque in his favour in respect of an account in the OP No.3 and the date was rewritten due to overflow of ink. It is urged that the complainant mentioned his mobile No. in the overleaf of the cheque and the OPs  might call the complainant to authenticate his alteration but the OPs  dishonoured the cheque in a mechanical manner. He submits that the OP Nos. 1&2  have deficiency in service. He prays for refund of Rs.192/ along with interest and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- against the OP Nos. 1&2.

        The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 3 submits that the cheque was not cleared by the O.P. No.1 for which the OP no. 3 had no other alternative but to  deduct Rs.100/- as per rules.

        The Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos 1&2 submits that the Cheque was sent to the central clearing office of the UBI at Berhampore and the cheque was not cleared as there was no authentication of  alteration in the cheque. The OPs have no deficiency in service.

        Perused the Complaint, W.V., evidence, written argument of the Complainant and documents filed by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant have S/B account s in the OP Nos 1&3. Admittedly, the Complainant issued a cheque  drawn on UBI, Berhampore Branch on 01.06.15 in his name to be credited in his own account  with the O.P. No. 3. It appears from the Xerox copy of the cheque dated 01.06.15 that there was alteration of date without authentication.  The O.P. no. 1 returned the cheque on 02.06.15. The complainant mentioned his mobile No. in the overleaf of the cheque but the O.p. No. 1 did not call the complainant for authentication. Mobile No. is generally given for solution of petty problems.  In the present case, the O.P. No. 1  did not call the complainant for authentication of alteration. The reason for return of cheque stated by the OP No. 1 is not at all acceptable. The O.P. No. 1 returned the cheque in a mechanical manner  without giving proper service to the complainant , resulting loss of Rs.192/- and mental pain and agony . In our considered opinion, the OP Nos. 1&2 have deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 192/- and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- against the OP Nos 1&2. We find that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service against the OP No.3.

Reasons for delay

        The Case was filed on 19.08.15 and admitted on 03.09.15 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 complaint case succeeds.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence it is

                                         ORDERED

that the complaint case No. CC/112/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP Nos. 1&2 with cost of Rs. 1000/ and dismissed against the OPO No.3 without cost..

        The OP Nos. 1& 2 are directed to pay Rs. 192/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant by sixty days from the date of this order.

        The OP Nos. 1& 2 are also  directed to pay Rs. 1,000/ to the complainant as litigation cost by sixty days from the date of this order

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.