DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO.674/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
17.12.14 22.12.2014 05.06.2015
PETITIONER = Vs. = O.Ps.
Radha Nath Nandy, Canara Bank,
39/1, Green Park, Lake Town Branch,
B1-A, P.S. Lake Town, P-III, BI-A, 2nd Floor,
Kolkata- 700055. P.S. Lake Town,
Kolkata- 700055.
J U D G E M E N T
The fact of the case, in brief, is that the O.P Bank endorsement in the pay slip (& why not a cheque return memo) “accounts name & cheque name differs & no fund” amounting to severe coupled with unfair trade practice & reference is an administrative endorsement by hierarchy of O.P. Bank & sought to distinguish the endorsement, the said contention cannot be accepted.
The complainant stated that the Branch Manager of the O.P Bank in the beginning of 2013, after filing up cheque pay-in-slip of S. B. dated 26.02.13 & cheque bearing No. 346379 dated 14.12.12 for Rs. 3,42,203/- of form and after getting harassed in a multifaceted manner more than once at the whim whams and wrong information of the concerned Branch Manager resulting in sheer wastage of a good amount of money of the complainant getting fed up with the much delayed procedure of the O.P Bank, requested humbly the Branch Manager of the concerned Lake Town Branch office of O.P Bank repeatedly by expressing his anguish and agony to represent cheque again with statement as same person & to return back cheque return memo of dishonoured cheque as it had been a sheer loss on his part to get harassed and wait for such a long time by getting entangled and confined in Canara Bank & finally O.P Bank handed over cheque pay-in-slip dated 26.02.13 to the complainant with endorsement of the manager “ accounts name & cheque name differs & no fund”.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-674/2014
- :: 2 :: -
The complainant further stated that he politely after getting very much dejected and annoyed with the treatment/ behavior/ dealings of the O.P- Bank, requested the concerned Branch Manager of the O.P- Bank to return all the papers and documents submitted by the complainant as it had been too late on the part of the complainant getting harassed for such a long period of time in a multifaceted manner, the said Branch Manager somehow managed the situation by assuring that everything would soon get solved and convenient and thus befooled and deceived the complainant.
The complainant also stated that it is a fit case and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P- Bank coupled with their unfair trade practice resulting in severe harassment and sufferings of the complainant loss of not less than Rs. 12,00,000/- to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
The O.P has contested the case by way of filing written version.
The O.P stated that on 26.02.13 Sri Radhanath Nandy deposited a cheque of Deutsche Bank for Rs. 3,42,203 only vide cheque No. 346379 dated 14. 12.12. In the said cheque the payee name was written as “R. N. Nandy”.
The O.P further stated that the complainant has an account in Lake Town Branch bearing S/B. Account No. 1421101026627 in the name of “Radhanath Nandy”. The pay-in-slip also mentioned as “Radhanath Nandy”.
The O.P also stated that when the pay-in-slip and the cheque were returned to the complainant, he insisted the banker that the reason with date and stamp to be mentioned in the pay-in-slip.
The O.P further stated that the cheque was not placed for clearing as the name in the said cheque by the complainant and the S/B. A/c name was different, the pay-in-slip was marked as “A/c’s name and cheque name differ” by the Clearing Department, Kolkata with branch’s stamp and date stamp. But in the pay-in-slip, there were an additional word, i.e. “no fund”.
The O. P also stated that the bank did not write the word “no fund” and the complainant had received the cheque from the Merck Ltd which was drawn on Deutsche Bank. So the O.P is in no position to mark the same as “no fund” because it was a deposited cheque not a withdrawal cheque. The cheque was never placed to the issuing branch due to difference of name.
The O.P further stated that in the pay-in-slip, there were an additional word, i.e. “no fund” and O.P did not write the word “no fund” and the most
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-674/2014
- :: 3 :: -
important thing is that the complainant had received the said cheque from the Merck Ltd which was drawn on the Deutsche Bank. So the O.P is in no position to mark as “no fund” because of it was a deposited cheque not a withdrawal cheque. Hence the O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Both the complainant and the O.P filed affidavit-in-chief.
We have heard the submission of the Ld. Lawyers of the complainant and O.P . Admittedly, the complainant has an account in Lake Town Branch bearing SB A/c. No. 1421101026627 in the name of “Radhanath Nandy”. Admittedly, on 26.02.13 Sri Radhanath Nandy deposited a cheque of Deutsche Bank for Rs. 3,42,203/- and in the said cheque the payee name was written as “R. N. Nandy”.
The O.P submitted that when the pay-in-slip and the cheque were returned to the complainant, the complainant insisted the banker that the reason with the date and stamp to be mentioned in the pay-in-slip. The O.P further submitted that the cheque was never placed for clearing as the name in the said cheque by the complainant and the SB A/c name was different, the pay-in-slip was marked as “A/c’s name and cheque name differ” by the Clearing Department, Kolkata with branch’s stamp and date stamp.
The O.P submitted that in the pay-in-slip, there was an additional word, i.e. “no fund”. But present O.P did not write the word “no fund” and the complainant had received the cheque from the Merck Ltd which was drawn on Deutsche Bank. According to the O.P, it was deposited cheque and not withdrawal cheque. The said cheque was never placed to the issuing branch due to difference of name.
According to the O.P, there was no deficiency of service or conduct of unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P and no situation has arisen for mental pain, harassment to be inflicted upon the complainant by the O.P.
It appears that on the cheque it is written A/c. name and cheque names differ, “no fund”, but O.P could not establish that the complainant had no fund in the bank.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 4/-
C. C. Case No.-674/2014
- :: 4 :: -
The O.P further stated that the cheque was drawn on the Deutsche Bank but there is no seal and stamp of Deutshe Bank on the cheque. It appears that on the cheque the stamp and seal of the O.P reveals. The O.P’s submission that the name was different name “Radhanath Nandy and R.N. Nandy” but why “no fund” has written, it is not established. There is no cogent evidence on the part of the O.P to prove that complainant had no fund in the O.P’s Bank account because the O.P has admitted that the complainant has an account in the bank.
In view of that considering the materials on record along with remarks on the cheque it appears that O.P has deficiency in service in returning the cheque with the remark “no fund”. Hence the O.P is liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant and complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Hence
Ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the O.P.
O.P is directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 3,42,203/- to the complainant after maintaining all formalities within one month from the date of this order.
O.P is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the O.P shall have to pay sum of Rs. 200/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the O.P in this State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
