Order-21.

Date-26/06/2015.

Complainant Tapan Kumar Dutta by filing this complaint submitted that op no.1 is the Post Master General of West Bengal and op no.3 is the General Manager, S.B.I., West Bengal op no.4 is the Regional Manager in the Eastern Region, S.B.I., West Bengal and op no.5 is the Branch Manager of SBI Dhakuria Branch and op no.2 is the Post Master of Alipore Head Post Office in whose custody the complainant had a savings account being No. 844387.
    Complainant on 17.06.2013 issued one cheque being No. 201565 for Rs. 30,000/- in favour of Sri Baishampayan Roy from his Post Office Saving Account No. 844387 at Alipore Head Post Office towards the fees for professional studies of his son and till that date i.e. 17.06.2013 complainant had a sum of Rs. 44,961.35 paisa in account of the complainant which was sufficient to pay the fees for the professional studies of his son.
    On 18.06.2013 Baishampayan Roy deposited the said cheque State Bank of India, Dhakuria Branch for encashment.  To his utter surprise he noticed that the said cheque has been bounced with a remark ‘payment stopped by the drawer’ what the complainant was not intimated in any way and fact remains that complainant also did not intimate to his banker i.e. Alipore Head Post Office and did not put any such mandate to the post office at any point of time as there was an urgent need of money for the fees for professional studies of his son and complainant had to issue the said cheque.  But when the said cheque was dishonoured, complainant was compelled to withdraw the said amount and paid the same to save the end of his son’s studies as the last date to deposit of such professional fees and in the meantime op no.5 placed the said cheque again for encashment and the same was bounced on 25.06.2013 and thereby Baishampayan Roy the payee of the said cheque was penalized for bouncing charge for two times  at the rate Rs. 102/- each.
    Practically there is some kind of nexus between the ops due to which complainant had to face so much mental agony and harassment.  Fact remains that complainant is a consumer and the ops are the service providers/trader and the office of the ops are situated well within the jurisdiction of this Forum and due to unfair and unwarranted action of the ops, complainant has been suffering from both physical and mental harassment and his social dignity has been maligned when Baishampayan Roy abused him with unwarranted defamatory languages and he also suffered monetary loss.
    In the above circumstances for deficient and negligent manner of service, this complaint is filed for redressal.
    Op no. 5 State Bank of India, Dhakuria Branch by filing written version submitted that the cheque was presented before op bank on 17.06.2013 for encashment and same was dishonoured with a remark ‘funds insufficient’ which is completely different from the fictitious story of the complainant.  But the statement made in paragraph-6 is a matter of fact and entirely connected with op no.2 and therefore op no.5 has no comment on the same and the allegation of the complainant against op no.5 is completely malafide and complainant is not the customer of the op no.5 in any manner whatsoever and fact remains that Baishampayan Roy and not of the complainant and the said cheque was issued from the account of op no.2 and therefore the entire process regarding the balance available in the account of the complainant and clearance of the issued cheque amount was exclusively under the authority of op no.2 and op no.5 is nowhere responsible for the conduct of the op no.5.  In fact that the present complaint does not disclose any cause of action against op no.5 and in the above circumstances, op no.5 shall be discharged from all the false and fabricated allegations of the present complaint and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.
    Op no.2 by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant’s SB A/C of Alipore Head Post Office being A/c No. 844387 and complainant issued one cheque bearing No. 201565 dated 17.06.2013 for Rs. 30,000/- in favour of Baishampayan Roy which was deposited to SBI on 18.06.2013 for encashment but it is false to say that the said cheque was bounced with the remark ‘payment stopped by the drawer’ and this op denied it in toto.  Op stated that the said cheque was not received by Alipore Head Post Office between 18.06.2013 to 21.06.2013and question of remark ‘stop payment’ on 18.06.2013 but the op does not arise.  Op further submitted that complainant himself withdrew the said amount of Rs. 30,000/- on 21.06.2013 through another cheque vide cheque no. 201566 and after withdrawal of  said amount his balance amount was Rs. 14,961/- in the said account  and in the meantime op no.5 again placed the previous cheque bearing no. 210565 dated 17.06.2013 for encashment on 25.06.2013 which was bounced that too for insufficient of fund as because balance amount was of Rs. 14,961/- and the ledger in respect of A/c No. 844387 and bank statement filed and op no.2 is not legally liable for any negligence and deficiency of service.  So, there was no fault on the part of the op no.2 for which this case is liable to be dismissed against op no.2.

                                               Decision with reasons
    On overall evaluation of the entire complaint including the written version and further considering the statement of account as submitted by the op Post Office in respect of the account of the complainant of that post office, it is clear that from 03.04.2013 to 21.06.2013 in the said account of the complainant being no. 844387, total balance was Rs. 56,392/- to Rs. 44,961/- on 21.06.2013 and complainant withdrew Rs. 30,000/- from the bank. Thereafter outstanding balance was Rs. 14,961.05 paisa.
    So considering the balance sheet of the ledger of SB A/C of the complainant in Alipore Post Office reveals that there was sufficient amount to encash the cheque of Rs. 30,000/- and op nos. 1 & 2 have specifically mentioned that there was no mandate on the part of the complainant for non-encashment of any cheque from the said account by anyone against any cheque placed by any person in whose name cheque was issued by the complainant.  Then question is how this op bank can claim that cheque was bounced for insufficient of fund but in this regard op bank reported to the complainant vide BR 43/915 dated 07.09.2015 payment was stopped by the drawer for which the cheque was not encashed.  But no such endorsement of the post office is proved by the op bank.  
    On the contrary postal authority stated that they never put any such remark that payment stopped by the drawer, but fact remains that it is made by the banking authority suomoto without the note of the post office and when the matter was brought to the notice of the bank, they managed to save their skin again placed for encashment when in the meantime complainant withdrew some amount against fees of his student son and no doubt at that time the cheque was not presented by the complainant Baishampayan Roy, but it was kept by the bank of SBI, Dhakuria Branch to save their skin against placed it and again it was dishonoured due to insufficient fund.
    Most interesting factor is that Baishampayan Roy never received the said cheque from the bank, bank only to save their skin again placed it and that is no doubt uncalled for one and such a practice on the part of the bank is not as per Banking Rules.  Another factor is that Banking Authority has failed to prove that any endorsement was made by the bank to the op to the effect that payment was stopped by the drawer.  Bank has also failed to produce any such paper of the Postal Authority.
    So, it is clear that the present bank acted illegally and no doubt it is a malpractice on the part of the bank.  Another factor is that subsequent placement of the cheque was made by the bank as cheque was in their custody and in fact before that complainant paid that amount to the said Baishampayan Roy by withdrawing from the post office and considering all the above fact, it is clear that dishonoured of cheque on the ground of payment stopped by the drawer is completely false and it was made by the bank for other purpose and subsequent placement by the bank is uncalled for because it was the duty on the part of the bank to return the cheque to the person who submitted the same.
    Fact remains that the act has been done by the op bank and cheque was of complainant and it was not the fault of the Postal Department.  When that cheque was not encashed by the bank, then invariably bank shall have to prove that post office has put such endorsement.  But op bank has also failed to prove.  So considering that fact is proved that the bank has adopted unfair trade practice and by using the cheque of the complainant adopted unfair trade practice and tried to prove that the postal authority made such endorsement but when that has not been proved, then the entire act of the bank is deceitful manner on the part of the bank for which invariably op bank must have to pay compensation because complainant has been harassed by the op bank for their negligent and deceitful manner of service and it is specifically observed in so many judgement even if it is found that service as rendered by Postal/Bank Authority as found insufficient in nature, their service shall be treated as deficient manner of service and if it is proved that the cheque of any 3rd person presented before bank or post office and that has been done dishonoured showing some false ground in that case also it shall be treated as insufficient of service or deficient manner of service and in the present case, op bank’s deficient manner of service is proved because he did not give proper service in respect of encashment of the cheque what the complainant issued in favour of 3rd party.
    At the same time this bank adopted unfair trade practice on their part and they denied encashment ground showing false post office put such note that payment stopped by the drawer.  But such endorsement is found baseless and fabricated when post office submitted that there was no such note on the part of the Postal Authority and no such cheque was present to the op by the bank.
    So, negligent and deficient manner of service and deceitful manner of service on the part of the op no.5 is well proved and for causing mental pain and agony and sufferings and also for making such false endorsement for dishonouring the cheque, the complaint succeeds against op no.5 with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and same is dismissed against op nos. 1 to 4.

    Hence, it is
                                                     ORDERED
    That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op no.5 with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and same is dismissed against op nos. 1 to 4 on contest without any cost.
    Op no.5 the Branch Manager of SBI, Dhakuria Branch is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassing the complainant and for adopting unfair trade practice and for adopting deceitful manner of trade for dishonour of the cheque by putting such false note which was not noted by the Postal Authority.  
    Op no. 5 is directed to pay the same within one month from the date of this order, failing which penal interest  at the rate Rs. 100/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree.  If penal interest is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
    Even if it is found that op no.5 is reluctant to comply the order, in that case, penal proceeding u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed against op no.5.