ORDER
13.06.2017
Upendra Jha Member(M).
This appeal is direct against the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the District Forum, Gopalganj in complaint case no. 54 of 2014 by which the appellants is directed to pay the complainant- Respondent sum of Rs. 47,400/-Cheque amount with 12% interest and Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15000/- by way of litigation cost.
2. Brief facts of this case is that the appellant Bank had issued a Cheque no. 428794 on 30.03.2009 for Rs. 47,400/- in favour of Tata Motors Limited, Muzaffarpur but it could get payment of that cheque amount as the Bank did not send advise of the cheque and the cheque become infructous. This cheque was the last installment for Tata Motors . After that “No Dues certificate” could not be issued to him due to bounce of the cheque Tata Motor imposed a penalty of Rs. 55,100/- to the complainant. The Complainant approached the appellant Bank for refund the amount of cheque with interest but nothing could be done by the Bank. The Complainant filed a complaint before District Forum for direction to the Bank for payment of Rs. 1,72,500/-. The opposite party- appellant contested the case. The District Forum passed the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred.
3. Respective written notes of arguments have been filed by the parties. Heard.
4. The District Forum finding deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for not transferring the amount of cheque which was bounced due to in action of the Bank has allowed the complaint.
5. The counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the complaint is barred by limitation as it was a case of 2009 whereas the complaint was filed in 2014 after five years. The complainant has not stated that on which date the said cheque was dishonored. How the cheque came in the possession of Tata Motors. If the complainant had given in the knowledge of the appellant Bank earlier, the fate of cheque dated 30.03.2009 a fresh cheque might had been issued from the appellant Bank. No cheque is issued from the Bank without issuing the advise But, these points have not been considered by the District Forum before passing the impugned order. Hence, the order under appeal is not sustainable. It is fit to be set aside.
6. The counsel for the respondent submits and supports the order passed by the District Forum which is proper and well justified. It is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for that a reasonable amount of compensation has been awarded by the Bank. It is correct decision and needs no interference.
7. We have considered the grounds of appeal submissions of both parties and material available on record. On perusal of the order passed by the District Forum it appears that the Bank admits that the cheque issued by the Bank for Rs. 47,400/- on 30.03.2009 was not encashed due to non entry in the advise and the respondent had to deposit the imposed penalty of Rs. 55,100/- to the Tata Motors for making his bus free from his hypothecation. On request the Bank could not refund the cheque amount to the respondent despite repeated reminders. The complainant had to suffer a loss of Rs. (47,400 +55100/-) Rs. 1,02,500/- with physical & mental agony. So, the District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. There is no delay in filing complaint as the complainant was waiting for refund till filling complaint. However, compensation amount Rs. 40,000/- litigation cost of Rs. 15000/- and interest @ 12% seems higher. It is reduced to Rs. 30,000/- compensation, Rs. 10,000/- litigation cost rate of interest 8% instead of 12% is allowed. The entire amount with 8% interest is directed to be paid to the complainant-respondent from the date of filing of complaint within a period of two months from receipt of this order failing which 10% interest will be payable till the date of final payment. With these modifications, the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal is partly allowed.
S.K. Sinha Renu Sinha Upendra Jha
President Member(F) Member(M)
Mukund
