Order No. 39 Dt. 21.09.2017

       The factual matrix of the case is that the Complainant Kaushik Saha after receiving a cheque from Samsung India Limited bearing No. 433359 dt. 19.08.2014 drawn on Hongkong & Sanghai Banking Corporation has dropped the said cheque to his banker SBI Malda by duly filled up form on 29/08/2014 for encashment amounting to Rs.48000/-. The cheque amount was not credited to his account in spite of elapse of considerable period and he visited the SBI Malda in many occasions for the collection of the said cheque amount but the bank officials did not pay any heed. Then he submitted the written complaint at SBI, Malda on 26/09/2014 due to deficiency of service of the Bank the complainant was suffering from acute financial crunch and mental agony. So he filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, on 21/10/2014 with a prayer of immediate credit of Rs. 48000/- in his account compensation Rs. 100000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.50000/- for litigation cost. The State Bank of India, Malda Branch challenged the case of the petitioner by written version and their positive case is that the S.B.I., Malda by adopting the standard procedure sent the said cheque to CCPC Kolkata through Malda H.P.O. by registered post. The said cheque was not delivered to its destination due to negligence on the part of the post office.

       According to the case of the SBI, Malda the deficiency of service was not there to the complainant on their part rather the HPO, Malda had deficiency to provide service and due to their latches and lapses the bona fide customer i.e. the complainant cannot encash the cheque amount in due time and for that reason the bank is not liable to provide any relief or compensation to the complainant.

       In this case, the onus shifted upon the H.P.O., Malda by the S.B.I., Malda and they filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P. Code to implead the post office as necessary party. The Forum in earlier occasion rejected the said petition but the revision was moved before the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal where the Hon’ble State Commission considered the Malda H.P.O. as necessary party to this case and asked the Forum to impleade the H.P.O. Malda as adding party in this case.

       Thereafter, the O.P. No.3 & 4 i.e. the Supdt. of Head Post Office, Malda and Post Master H.P.O., Malda was impleaded as party to this case and they have also contested the case and stated that the S.B.I. booked a registered letter addressing to C.C.P.C. Kolkata on 04.09.2014 to send the instant cheque for collection on 04.09.2014. The said article was dispatched to Siliguri by Malda R.M.S. on 05.09.2014 and the article i.e. the cheque was delivered to addressee on 31/12/2014.

       After enquiry post office came to know that in initial stage the article was missent to Krishnapur S.O. by Kolkata R.M.S. which was retained there till 29.12.2014.

       The further case of the O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 is that the instant cheque deposited by the S.B.I. Malda was not insured as per Sec. 32 of Post Office Act,1898 and as such the Post Office has no fault in this regard.

     ::POINTS FOR DECISION::

1. Is the complainant a Bonafide ‘Consumer’?

2. Was there any deficiency of service on the part of the S.B.I., Malda and H.P.O. Malda towards the complainant?

3. To what other reliefs are the complainant entitled there to and from whom?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

          All the points are taken togetherly for discussion.

          Facts remain that the instant cheque was deposited to SBI, Malda for encashment on 29/08/2014 after elapsation of one month while the cheque amount was not credited in the account of the complainant he lodged a written complaint before the SBI Malda on 29/08/2014. It is also the admitted position that the SBI Malda deposited the said cheque for encashment for clearance from the CCPC Kolkata by sending it through Malda H.P.O. by registered post on 04.09.2014 the complainant submitted the written application on 26.09.2014. Then the bank lodged the web complaint before the Post Master, Malda on 28.09.2014 and the said cheque was delivered to the CCPC Kolkata by post office on 31.12.2014 and the cheque period by this time was already lapsed.

       The record speaks that the bank officials after getting return of the said cheque due to lapse of time sent the said cheque again to the drawer i.e. Samsung Electronics Company Limited for revalidation.

       So it is crystal clear that due to latches of Bank and Post Office the bona fide customer has suffered tremendously. The Post Office says that as the article (Cheque) was not properly insured and for that reason the cheque could not be delivered in due time. The bank says that due to latches on the part of the post office the consumer i.e. the complainant could not realize the cheque amount in due time and bank has no fault in this regard. The position is that a bank customer has suffered not only financially but also mentally and the Forum has entrusted by virtue of law to fix the responsibility for the sufferance of a bona fide consumer. At the time of argument Ld.Advocate of the O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 submits that post office was not the service provider to the complainant directly and the complainant was not the customer under the post office. So the post office is not liable to pay any compensation to the sufferer complainant. He further pointed his argument to the score that SBI, Malda was the consumer in the deal between SBI, Malda and H.P.O. Malda. SBI Malda did not lodge any consumer case against HPO Malda and as such Head Post Office of Malda is not liable to pay the compensation. It is fact that, as soon SBI deposited the cheque before the H.P.O. Malda for delivery of the same to CCPC Kolkata. SBI, Malda became customer directly under the Malda post office as they paid the requisite postal charges. But the SBI here in this case deposited the cheque to HPO Malda for its collection for commercial purpose and in this regard SBI Malda could not file any case under the Provisions of C.P. Act, 1986.

       Definitely, SBI, Malda has other relief in other Forum for the latches on the part of the post office but the SBI, Malda is definitely liable for the loss of the complainant as they were not vigil at the very outset of their initiation of the process regarding the collection amount and clearance of the cheque. It is also fact that at the relevant point of time to collect the outstation cheque amount instrument was required to send physically and only mode of transportation was available by adopting the postal services now-a-days the system has changed and there is no need to send the instrument physically and only the image of the instrument can be sent for clearance to outstation through networking system.

       In the present case the bank had only one option to send the cheque for clearance through postal process and cheque is not a precise thing to be insured as it is nothing but a promissory note and post office cannot escape itself from the liability for not delivering the article in due time only on the ground that it was not properly insured.

       Here in this case the cheque amount cannot be credited into the bank of the complainant in due time and as a result he has lost the handsome money for not getting the interest for the period till its realization of the full amount of the cheque. Record reflects that the cheque period was over and lapsed and it was not revalidated in spite of letter of the bank and the Forum was not clear whether the complainant has realized the cheque amount of      Rs. 48000/- from its drawer or not.  There was no averment that he has lost the cheque amount permanently. On the other hand from the cross-examination of P.W.-1 i.e. the complainant and Ext. B and C proves the fact that the complainant’s cheque was revalidated by the drawer which was handed over to him by drawer Bank on 15/01/15.

       So it is apparent that he has suffered for not getting the cheque amount in due time and was delayed for four months and ultimately he has deprived from getting the interest over the principal amount of Rs. 48000/-. Not only that he has personally harassed and suffered from mental agony and ultimately he was compelled or rather forced to submit a consumer complaint and took the path of litigation and for his overall and ultimate sufferings the Forum thinks it fit to award compensation of Rs. 15000/- in a whole and to deposit Rs.2000/- before the State Consumer Welfare Fund for the latches on their part.

       SBI, Malda has to take the initial liability to comply the order of this Forum and the SBI Malda has also the right to realize the awarded money from the H.P.O. Malda in accordance with the established procedure and norms as the ultimate liability for their latches rests upon the H.P.O. Malda.

       All the points are hereby disposed of accordingly.

       Proper fee paid.

       Hence,                            ordered

that the complaint case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by Kartik Saha is hereby allowed on contest with cost against the O.Ps.

       The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 the State Bank of India represented by General Manager and Chief Manager of Malda Branch are hereby asked to pay compensation to the complainant Kaushik Saha Rs. 15000/- within one month from the date of this order failing which Rs. 8% p.a. interest would be imposed. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed to deposit Rs. 2000/- in the State Consumer Welfare Fund within one month from the date of this order.

       Liberty is hereby given to the S.B.I, Malda (O.P. Nos.1 & 2 )to the score that the awarded money to be paid by the bank will have the right to recover the awarded money from the Indian Postal Authority by a suit or proceedings in the proper Forum in accordance with the established procedure of law. The complainant also entitled to put the decree into execution if the order of this Forum is not strictly complied with.

           Let a copy of the order be given to each of the parties free of cost.