Orissa

Cuttak

CC/28/2023

Pravas Chandra Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,The Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.28/2023

 

          Shri Pravas Chandra Das,

S/o: Late Lal Bihari Das,

Resident of Lane No.3,Jyoti Vihar,

Bidanasi,Cuttack-753014.                                                        ... Complainant.

 

     Vrs.

 

 

1.       The Branch Manager,

The Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Cuttack Main Branch,Tinkonia Bagicha,

                     Cuttack-753001

 

2.       The Branch Manager,

The Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Chauliaganj Branch,At:Chauliaganj,

                 P.O: Nayabazar,Dist-Cuttack.                                                ...Opp. Parties

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    24.01.2023

Date of Order:  12.09.2023

 

For the complainant       :Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps             :          Mr.J.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that while working as Manager in the O.P Bank he had opened a Savings Bank Account vide No.13901026974 at Tinikonia Bagicha Branch of Cuttack.  He had a balance of Rs.5304.34p as on 1.6.2022 in his said account.  He had another account in the S.B.I,Markatnagar Branch bearing No.33072189918 and wanted to transfer his money in the account at the O.P bank to the account of S.B.I for which he had issued a cheque bearing no.171142 on 1.6.2022 drawn on Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and had deposited the said cheque at S.B.I for its clearance and credit accordingly.  To his dismay, the cheque was not cleared but was rather returned with a memo “refer to drawer”.  The cheque was valued for Rs.4000/- whereas he had a balance of Rs.5304.34p in his account.  On his query, he could not get any reasonable reply from the O.Ps.  He had made a representation to that effect to O.P no.1 which was sent by speed post on 19.8.2022.  On 2.9.2022, O.P no.1 had informed the complainant that his account was restricted for payment for which the cheque was dishonoured.  It was also informed to the complainant that in view of the letter from the Head Office of the O.Ps dated 30.8.2022, the restriction on the account was lifted and accordingly, the cheque if presented would be cleared without any further impediment.  According to the complainant, the restriction as imposed upon his account by the O.Ps was quite illegal as because he had already regularised/liquidated the irregularity in Chauliaganj Branch on 17.5.2022 by depositing a cash of Rs.24,841/- and by virtue of the same, the O.Ps had issued the Loan Clearance Certificate in respect of M/s. Alpha Chemical Works.  Thus, the complainant has filed this case when his cheque was dishonoured by the O.Ps and has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  He has also prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version together.  From the written version of the O.Ps, it is learnt that the complainant while under employment of the O.Ps and was working as the Branch Manager,Chauliaganj Branch had committed irregularities in allowing Bill  Purchase for a sum of Rs.6,40,554/- in the current account of a Firm named and Styled as M/s. Alpha Chemicals for which a Surcharge Proceeding bearing no.23412002 was initiated against the present complainant by the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Cuttack Circle-II.   In the award of the said proceeding dated 25.7.2003, the complainant was liable to deposit the amount with interest within 30 days thereof.  When the complainant failed to comply the surcharge award, the O.P bank had initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the complainant by chargesheet dated 30.11.2003 and in the said proceeding also, the present complainant was punished vide order dated 2.7.2009 and vide order dated 9.12.2009 he was liable to deposit the Bill Purchase amount as per the award by the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Cuttack Circle-II in the Surcharge Proceeding.  Even then the complainant had not complied the said order inspite of repeated reminders to him.  The last such reminder with ultimatum was issued to him on dated 9.12.2014.  The complainant was superannuated from his service on 31.12.2016 leaving behind the Bill Purchase account unpaid.  After getting retirement from the service, the complainant had filed representation dated 21.1.2017 authorising the O.P bank to restrict or to transfer a sum of Rs.2,39,000/- from his Savings Bank Account towards the Bill Purchase account but only a sum of Rs.2,33,000/- was remitted towards the Bill Purchase account from the account of the complainant and as such, there was an outstanding due of Rs.21,143.98p which had remained unpaid.  The Bill Purchase account was finally closed on 17.5.2022 but the complainant had not informed about the same to the O.P no.1 so as to lift the restriction as imposed upon his Savings Bank Account.  Thus, it is prayed by the O.Ps through their written version that there was no deficiency on their part for which they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed against them.

          Together with their written version, the O.Ps have filed copies of several documents in order to support their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition, the contents of the written version as made by the O.Ps together with the written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides and also after perusing the copies of documents those which are filed from either sides, it is noticed that admittedly, the present complainant was the former Manager of the O.P bank called Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.,Cuttack who had a Savings Bank Account bearing no.13901026974 at Tinikonia Bagicha Branch of Cuttack.  As on 1.56.2022 he had an amount of Rs.5204.34p in his account.  It is not in dispute that the present complainant had another account in the S.B.I,Markatnagar Branch where he had produced a cheque on 1.6.2022 intending to transfer a sum of  Rs.4000/- from the Tinikonia Bagicha Branch of  Urban Co-operative Bank to the S.B.I,Markatnagar Branch.  It is also not in dispute that the said cheque of the complainant was dishonoured by the O.Ps and was returned with a memo “refer to drawer”.  Admittedly, the complainant while working as the Branch Manager of the O.P Bank at Chauliaganj Branch had involved himself in irregularities as he had allowed Bill Purchase of Rs.6,40,554/- in the current account of a firm M/s. Alpha Chemicals for which there was Surcharge Proceeding and D.P initiated against him where he was found guilty and was penalised being directed to clear the amount.  As per the O.Ps, though after superannuation from service the complainant had authorised the O.P no.1 to remit a sum of Rs.2,33,000/- towards such Bill Purchase account, a sum of Rs.21,143.98 had still remained unpaid.  Subsequently, the complainant had managed to clear the same for which on 30.8.2022 the O.P no.1 was instructed by his Head office to cancel the restriction mark as imposed on the account of the present complainant.  The present complainant had written to the O.P no.1 through his letter dated 19.8.2022 seeking clarification as regards to their dishonouring of his cheque though he had sufficient balance in his savings account.  On 2.9.2022 the Head office of the O.Ps had intimated the present complainant about rescinding the restriction as imposed.

As it appears after perusing of all those available copies of documents that in fact the complainant was involved in financial irregularities which he had cleared after being superannuated from his service.  When he had disobeyed the award of the Surcharge Proceeding as well as that of the D.P which was initiated against him, the Head office of the O.Ps had imposed restriction on his account.  After clearing the said irregularities, while the matter was brought to the notice of the Head office of the O.Ps under whom the complainant was also working prior to being superannuated on 30.8.2022; the Head office of the O.Ps had written letter to the O.P no.1 to cancel the restriction mark as imposed upon the account of the complainant.  The said fact was also intimated to the complainant by Head office through their letter dated 2.9.2022.  Thus, it is quite clear here in this case that on the date of presenting the cheque, the complainant was well aware of the fact that there were restrictions imposed on his account since because he had disobeyed the award and punishment as imposed upon him through the Surcharge Proceeding and the D.P as well.  Thus, though he had sufficient funds in his account, the O.P no.1 had dishonoured the presented cheque of the complainant since because there was imposition of restriction on the said account of the complainant by the date of presentation of the said cheque i.e. on 1.6.2022.  It was the duty of the complainant being an employee under the Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.,Cuttack to discharge his official duties with due diligence and within the parameters of the banking laws without exceeding the ambit of the rules and regulations therein.  When he made himself involved in financial irregularities by allowing Bill Purchase to the tune of Rs.6,40,554/- in the current account of M/s. Alpha Chemicals, definitely he had an oblique motive behind it and the same act was not in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Banking laws.  It is for the said reason, restriction in his account was imposed and on the date of presentation of his cheque i.e. on 1.6.22 there was restriction for which his cheque was rightly dishonoured.  Thus, this Commission arrives at a conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps when they had dishonoured the cheque of the complainant as per the rules and procedures of the Banking laws.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue no.iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 12^th day of September,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                           President

 

                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                   Member