MR. PRABODHA KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT:-
This C.C.Case No. 39/2018 taken up today for orders. This C.C.Case was filed on dt. 05.07.2018 as it reveals from the note sheets & the same posted for 63 dates on various occasions. Hence, on priority basis the case is disposed off accordingly. Notice was sufficient against all the Ops, but Op No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written version and contested the case. Op No.3 to 5 sufficiently noticed but not appeared and as such Op No.3 to 5 are set ex-parte.
Brief Fact:-
Complainant being a consumer under Op No.1 opened a current A/C No. 4983002140 for business transaction in order to earn his livelihood by means of self employment in his name as proprietorship. The Complainant during such business availed the service of Op No.1 for transaction in time to time for cash and cheque. Subsequently the Complainant availed a loan from Op no.1, which was cash credit loan vide A/C No. 87/153 in the year of 2011. The Complainant made all transactions through the Current Account, also used cheque facilities. Thereafter, the Complainant being a small business man unable to maintain two accounts simultaneously, therefore his previous current account remained in dormant condition for long times from the date of opening of current account since 2011. The same current account balance was nill on dt. 16.02.2017. Surprisingly in complainant’s account someone deposited Rs. 200/- at a different branch(PNB Paikarapur branch, Salipur, Dist-Cuttack) deposited Rs. 200/- and applied cheque book issued in complainant’s name by Op No.2. Further, one of the same cheque issued in favour of Op No.5 bearing cheque No.263477 was presented for payment & the same was bounced as insufficient of fund, resultantly Rs. 575/- debited from such dishonored, which was bad, illegal, against the interest of consumer(Complainant), which was also a deficiency in service on part of Op No.1 & illegal activities of Op No.2. Further, the Complainant prayed for deficiency in service of Op No.1,2&4 for mental agony, litigation cost as a just & equitable relief.
We have gone through the materials particulars available on record. Perused the complaint petition also written statement filed by Op No.1 &2, so also documents exhibited on records.
Determination of issues for better adjudication of C.C.Case in hand.
- Whether Complainant is a consumer within the C.P.Act,2019.
- Whether the complaint case has been filed within the limitation periods under C.P.Act,2019.
- Whether the Op No.1 & 2 committed deficiency of service towards the complainant under C.P.Act,2019.
- Whether Complainant entitled to any relief prayed for under the C.P.Act,2019.
- Whether the Complainant prayed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which is just & proper ?
Issue No.1:
As per the averment made in the complaint petition, he is a small business man purchasing building materials & for the same transaction opened current account, wherein he made transaction is a consumer under the PNB(OP No.1), in a reported case of Honbl’e SCDRC held that, where a person buys any article for consideration to use it for self employment in order to earn his livelihood, the purchase is not for commercial purpose. He is therefore a consumer within the meaning of C.P.Act,2019. Moreover the Complainant purchase building material & sale to customer for self employment and running a business is a consumer.
Issue No.2:
The question of limitation as in their written statement by Op No.1 & 2, as perused from Annexure-A, an amount Rs.575/- debited from complainant account for insufficient fund on dt. 28/3/2017, form Complainant account in dispute, the case was filed on dt. 05/07/2018. Therefore in our views the C.C.Case filed within prescribed limitation period.
Issue No.3:
Most of the allegations of complainant admitted by the Op No.1 &2, in their written statement before us. Undoubtedly the current account No. 4983002100001051 of Complainant was zero balance on dt. 16/02/2017 & Rs. 200/- deposited by unknown person on dt. 20/03/2017 and subsequently such person applied cheque on a non-account branch far from original Bank Op no.1, so called from non-home branch.
It was admitted by the Ops that, Op No.4 was a employee of Op No.1 & during his service in the home branch, he knew the Complainant & his transaction on the said branch when OpNo.4 transferred to OpNo.2 Branch, he has committed all such illegal activities and also utilized Complainant’s A/C No. 4983002100001051 which was in OpNo.1 branch. It was also admitted by OpNo.1 that, a cheque could not be issued by the bank in which A/C balance is less than Rs. 5,000/- and so also a non-home branch can’t issue a cheque.
In our opinion the Op No.1 & 2 both have committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by which the complainant suffered financial & mental loss throughout the period.
Question of Jurisdiction:-
The OpNo.1 & 2 behemently opposed the jurisdiction of this Commission for non-existence of cause of action. Further, submitted that, OpNo.4 involved in the irregularities of financial transaction and utilized the cheque with connivance of OpNo.5 with dishonest motive for wrongful gain & OpNo.2 initiated criminal proceeding against OpNo.4 and for such criminal dispute, this Commission oust its jurisdiction so vested to decide the present case finally. We assessed the averments of OpNo.1 & 2 which is superficial & not particularly fact finding. The Ops have not mentioned criminal case record like F.I.R, Case No. not etc. They are underestimate the power so vested by the legislature under the C.P.Act, 2019 on this Commission. The power so vested with this Commission to adjudicate the case in-hand & come to find a conclusion for the end of Justice. The OpNo.1 & 2 to escape their liability under the law fixing criminal liability upon OpNo.4 & 5, but as a matter of fact all the Ops are jointly & severally liable except Op No.3.
But the Complainant has not sustained any financial loss for the administration of justice the Commission has to fix liability on Op No.1 & 2 for timely & properly remedial measure can be taken.
O R D E R
Taking into consideration of the facts & circumstances as discussed above this Commission deem it fit and proper to direct the Op No.2 shall pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony suffered by the Complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost in toto Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Op No.2 shall pay @9% interest P.A. shall be payable till its realization. The complaint petition is partly allowed & no order as to cost.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 1st day of August,2022.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
