C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/51
COMPLAINANT : Biplab Biswas,
S/o Late Gorachand Biswas,
Vill. West Jagadanandapur near
Pragati Sangha Club, P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.O. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs :1. Branch Manger,
United Bank of India,
Vill + P.O. Ranaghat,
P.S. Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia
Pro-OPs: 1. Branch Manager,
UCO Bank
Vill + P.O. Ranaghat,
P.S. Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia
- Branch Manger,
United Bank of India,
Vill + P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 18th March, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is an account holder under the Pro-OP No.1. He obtained two cheques on UCO Bank, Ranaghat Branch amounting to Rs. 49,144/- and he deposited both the cheques on 28.04.09 for encashment before the OP No.1. But on 25.05.09 the OP No. 1 returned both the cheques to him without assigning any reason for non-encashment of the cheques. It is the gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1. So having no other alternative, he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No.1, UBI, Ranaghat Branch has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the petitioner did not deposit two cheques on 28.04.09 at his office for encashment. So no question of returning both the cheques by him to the complainant does arise on 25.05.09 as alleged by him. He also submits that he returned the cheques to the customer on the ground of paucity of fund or identification of signature or any reason whatsoever and accordingly a notice was given to that extent also and thereafter, the cheque was returned to the customer. This Bank has no such document to show whether those two cheques were returned to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made this allegation and hence, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
The Pro-OP No.1, UCO Bank, Ranaghat Branch has filed a separate written versions in this case, inter alia, stating that one Rose Valley Real Estate & Construction Ltd. issued two cheques in favour of the complainant, Biplab Biswas with an amount of Rs.30,219/- and Rs.18,895/- on 14.04.09. He also submits that those cheques as submitted before him for encashment were given clearance as usual on 05.06.09. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and it is liable to be dismissed against him also.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is he entitled to get a decree as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with the annexed documents and the written versions filed by the OPs along with the documents also it is available on record that Rose Valley Real Estate & Construction Ltd. issued two cheques in favour of the complainant, Biplab Biswas on 14.04.09 amounting to Rs.30,219/- and Rs.18,895/-. The complainant accordingly, deposited both the cheques before the OP No. 1, UBI, Ranaghat Branch for encashment on 28.04.09 in his SB Account No. 0219010114433. It is also established that on 25.05.09 both the cheques were returned to the complainant by the OP No. 1 without encashment after putting seal and signature of the Bank on the reverse of the cheques. So we find that this complainant deposited two cheques in his SB Account No. 0219010114433 with the OP No. 1 at its Ranaghat Branch on 28.04.09 for encashment which were returned to the complainant on 25.05.09. Both the cheques were subsequently encashed by the complainant on 05.06.09 which is available from the statement filed by the Pro-OP No. 1 UCO Bank. Ld. lawyer for the complainant has also submitted in his argument that the complainant has already encashed both the cheques and took the money also on 05.06.09. But his claim is that the cheques were returned to him by the OP No. 1 on 25.05.09, though he deposited the same for encashment on 28.04.09 before the OP No.1 for which he demanded compensation. From the argument of the ld. lawyer of the complainant it is available that the complainant has the SB Account with UBI, Bethuadahari Branch, but he deposited the cheques for encashment at UBI, Ranaghat Branch. Ld. lawyer for the OP No. 2 submits that at the relevant time core Banking services was just initiated at his Branch due to which he failed to send the cheques for encashment within that period. He also submits that the cheques were returned to the complainant with a reasoning note also which the ld. lawyer for the complainant denies. But the fact is that it is the banking rule that whenever a cheque is returned to the depositor, one reason-memo is supplied by the Bank. The ld. lawyer for the OPs also argues that as the complainant was not an account holder under UBI, Ranaghat Branch, so it was not possible for him to communicate with him as his address was not known to him. So considering this argument we find that there was no malafide intention on the part of the OP No. 1 to cause the delay for encashment of the cheques deposited by the complainant. The complainant subsequently deposited both the cheques at his Bethuadahari Branch Account from where the cheques were sent to UBI, Ranaghat Branch and the cheques were encashed through that Bank also.
Therefore, considering the facts of this case and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for both sides, we find that there is no malafide intention or negligence on the part of the OP No. 1 for causing this delay of some days for encashment of the cheques. Rather it is a bonafide mistake on the part of the OP No. 1 as well as the complainant also who did not supply his name and address at the time of deposit the cheques for encashment before the OP No. 1.
In view of this our considered view is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 as alleged by the complainant. So the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/51 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
