Order No. 15 dt. 11/04/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has an account with o.p. bank and issued a cheque on 18.11.13 amounting to Rs.11,000/- to one Ashok Kr. Shaw. The said cheque was dishonoured with the observation that the sufficient fund was not lying in the said account. On the basis of the said fact the complainant wrote a letter to o.p. bank as to why the cheque was dishonoured. Because of such incident the complainant made allegation against the o.ps. that there was deficiency in service for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for debiting the amount from the account of the complainant and crediting the same in the account of the person in whose name the cheque was issued by the complainant. The complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant was an employee of o.p. bank and he was in employment of o.ps. from 25.6.07 to 12.9.14 as Asstt. Manager. The complainant also had staff salary account with IDBI Bank, Moradabad Branch, later on the request of the complainant, he was transferred to Kharagpur Branch of o.p. bank. The communication address captured in Amit Shaw salary account was IDBI Moradabad Branch. After reporting duties at Kharagpur Branch the leave record of the complainant was extremely poor and he was not confirmed in the services of o.p. bank and continued to be under probation. The complainant remained absent from the office since May 2009 without prior intimation to his supervisor. Because of such absence from the office of the complainant since 11.5.09 prior permission of supervisor and also not handing over the premises keys of the branch while proceeding on unauthorized leave was brought to the notice of Human Resource Deptt. (HRD) of o.p. bank. The bank thereafter on 21.5.09 called for explanation from the complainant for his unauthorized absence. However, the complainant neither responded to o.p. bank nor sought for permission from his supervisor informing his supervisor reasons for his absence and chose to remain absent from duties. Therefore the salary was stopped from May 2009 onwards. However, it was noted that the salary for the month of May – July 2009 were paid in his salary account. As the excess salary was remitted in the said account of the complainant, the o.p. bank for the purpose of recovery of said amount marked lien on the said account on 28.4.10 for the sum of Rs.60,000/-. However, from transaction enquiry settlement the balance showing was Rs.66,365/- but the effective balance was Rs.6365/- i.e. Rs.(66,365 – 60,000)=Rs.6365/-. Since the said amount was not lying in the account of the complainant, therefore the cheque was not cleared. There was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps., therefore o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant was an employee of o.p. bank.
- Whether he absented himself from his duty for which he was asked to show cause.
- Whether the amount paid excess in his account towards his salary.
- Whether the said account was adjusted with the excess amount.
- Whether after recording the actual balance amount was lying in the account.
- Whether there was any sufficient fund in the account.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainant did not appear on the date of hearing though he filed the documents to show that he issued the cheque which was dishonoured by the bank and therefore he had to file the case against the o.p. bank alleging deficiency in service against the o.ps.
The o.p. bank filed BNA and elaborately stated as to what was the actual fact for which the cheque was dishonoured. It was categorically stated that the complainant was Asstt. Manager of the bank and because of his irregular attendance show case was issued against him and the account maintained in the bank the salary account of the complainant. From the record itself it can be found that the complainant was paid excess amount during the months of May-July 2009 totaling amount of Rs.60,000/- for the purpose of recovery of excess amount marked lien on the said account on 28.4.10 for the sum of Rs.60,000/- and after adjustment of the said amount it was found that the amount was lying in the credit of the account holder to the tune of Rs.6365/-. Since the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.11,000/- and the amount was not lying in his account for that reason the cheque was not honoured. In view of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant was an employee of o.p. bank and during the period of his employment he remained absent without intimation for which he was asked to show cause. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant was transferred from Moradabad to Kharagpur. But after joining at Kharagpur Branch of o.p. bank the complainant started to remain absent for which he was asked to show cause as to why the disciplinary action would not be taken against him for such irregular absence from his duty. The complainant received the excess amount for the months of May-July 2009 and the bank after calculation of the said amount found that excess amount was paid to the complainant to the tune ofRs.60,000/-. For recovery of the said amount o.p. bank marked lien on the said account on 28,.4.10 for the sum of Rs.60,000/-. After adjustment of the said amount it was found that the amount was lying in the credit of the account holder to the tune of Rs.6365/- and since the cheque was issued of Rs.11,000/- and the said amount was not lying in the account of the complainant, the cheque could not be cleared by o.p. bank. Moreover, it is found from the materials on record that because of disciplinary proceeding against the complainant, his service was terminated by the bank. In order to create unnecessary trouble to the bank the complainant fled this case suppressing the material fact. Therefore we hold that o.p. bank did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in dishonouring the said cheque issued by the complainant and as such, we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.350/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
