West Bengal

Darjeeling

CC/8/2022

Norbu Tshering Tamang - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2023

ORDER

Govt. of West Bengal

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling.
24, M.C. Road, Chota kak Jhora, P.O & Dist: Darjeeling,

Pin- 734101. W.B
Phone No:- 0354-2252305

Consumer Complaint No- C.C- 08/2022

Date of Filing Date of Disposal
15.07.2022 20.07.2023
Complainant Opposite Party
Sri.Norbu Tshering Tamang, Manager
S/O Late Dhan Bahadur Tamang, Central Bank of India,
Resident of:- Near Damber Chowk
C/o Subham Niwas, Mangaldham Mission Trust,
Near Joredhara 10 th Mile,
P.O, P.S & Dist:Kalimpong, P.O, P.S & Dist:Kalimpong,
Pin Code: 734301. Pin Code: 734301.

Present:- Sri. Siddhartha Ganguli…………. Hon’ble President-in- Charge.
Mrs. Bhawana Thakuri……….. Hon’ble Member( Female).
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant:- Arabind Kumai.
Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party :- P.C Khati,

F I N A L O R D E R
Dated:- 20.07.2023
Mrs. Bhawana Thakuri( Member):- An application has been filed by the
Complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the
Opposite Party, the Manager, Central Bank of India, Mangaldham Mission Trust, 10 th Mile, P.O, P.S & Dist:- Kalimpong, Pin Code: 734301 alleging
gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
Fact of the Case:- The fact of the case in a nutshell is that, the Complainant
was a customer of O.P Bank, who had been maintaining a savings bank
account, being No:- 2264625789 and Recurring Deposit account, being No:-
3730774619 respectively with the O.P Bank. The Complainant due to some
unavoidable circumstances desired to close his said two accounts and
accordingly submitted a letter dated 28/04/2022 to that effect. The O.P Bank
after receiving the letter from the Complainant closed the Complainant‘s said
two accounts and issued a Demand Draft being No:- 057388, dated
28/04/2022 in favour of the Complainant to the tune of Rs.86,768/- (Rupees
Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight only), being the balance
amount in respect of both the said bank accounts.
The Complainant after receiving the Draft from the O.P Bank deposited the
said Draft in his Savings Account No:- 098101000923 of the ICICI Bank, Branch
Baghdhara Road, Kalimpong on 30/04/2022 and which was credited in his said
account number and was also reflected in the Bank Statement submitted by
the Complainant. It is the allegation of the Complainant that subsequent to the
said transaction the Complainant noticed that on the self same date the said
draft amount was rejected and withdrawn by the O.P Bank without assigning
any reason, which was also reflected in the Bank statement of the
Complainant. It was also reflected in the message sent by ICICI Bank to the
Complainant.
Accordingly the Complainant had raised the issue with the O.P Bank on
numerous times and requested to the Authority of the Central Bank of India,
Mangaldham Mission Trust Branch, Kalimpong several times verbally to credit
the said amount into the ICICI saving account of the Complainant but according to the Complainant all his efforts were in vain. The Complainant had to
sustain an irreparable monetary loss and mental agony due to such acts of
negligence, unreasonable and irresponsive acts of the O.P Bank.
The Complainant has alleges deficiency in service, negligence on the part of
the O.P Bank as the Opposite Party have failed to credit/payoff the said draft
amount to the Complainant till the date of presentation of the case, which
forced him to take shelter for protection under the umbrella of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, resulting the birth of this Consumer Complaint.
The Complainant has instituted this Consumer Complaint before this
Commission for proper relief and adequate compensation for the deficiency in
service, negligence, loss etc. under Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the
Opposite Party Bank.
Reliefs sought for:-
That direction to be given to the Opposite Parties:-
1. To credit Rs.86,768/- in the Saving Account No. 098101000923 ICICI
Bank of the Complainant.
2. To Allow damage sustained by the Complainant both monetary loss and
mental agony due to the negligence act on the part of the Opposite
Party to the tune of Rs:-50,000/- only.
3. Litigation cost of Rs:-20,000/- only
4. Pass any other order or orders.
The Complainant has filed the following Xerox documents in order to
prove his case. The copies were verified with the originals during
hearing.
List of documents filed by the Complainant:-
1. Pass Book of the Complainant Central Bank of India, Savings Account
No.2264625789, Recurring A/c No. 3730774619........Annexure- I. 2. Letter addressed to the Opposite Party dated 28/04/2022...Annexure- II.
3. Draft issued by the Opposite Party dated 28/04/2022....Annexure- III.
4. Pass book of the Complainant ICICI Bank, being A/c
No. 098101000923.....Annexure- IV.
5. Bank Statement of ICICI Bank.....Annexure- V
6. Message sent by the ICICI Bank dated 09/05/2022...Annexure- VI.
Notice:- The Complainant lodged the complaint against the Opposite
Party before the Ld. District Commission on 15/07/2022 with prayer for
several reliefs in a dispute of credit Rs.86,768/- in the Saving A/c no
098101000923 ICICI Bank of the Complainant. The said complaint was
admitted by Order No.02, dated 10/08/2022 fixing 27.09.2022 for S.R. &
Appearance, notice has been issued to the Opposite Party from this
District Commission, Darjeeling dated 16/08/2022 for S.R and
Appearance of the Opposite Party for filing Written Version. The said
notice was sent through speed post, being No:- EW893012650IN, dated
03/09/2022 to Manager, Central Bank India, Kalimpong.
It reveals from the case record that on 27/09/2022 Ld. Advocate for
the Opposite Party appeared before this Commission by filing Vokalatnama
and also filed one application praying for time for filing Written Version.
The District Commission allowed the said prayer fixing 20/10/2022 for
filing written version by the Opposite Party within the statutory period of
time as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and as per the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage
Pvt. Ltd Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Subsequently, on 20/10/2022 the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party
has assured the Commission that they would file W/V on 22/10/2022 and
also they would try to settle the disputes in consultation with the Bank
Authority. The Complainant agreed to settle the disputes in Lok Adalat and
both the Ld. Advocates along with their parties were directed to remain
present on 22/10/2022 at 11.am. On 22/10/2022 both the Ld. Advocates for the respective parties were present. With the consent of both the
parties the Opposite Party were directed to file W/V on 01/11/2022
positively.
Subsequently, on 01/11/2022, once again O.P prayed for time to file
written version but considering the order No. 06 dated 22/10/2022 where
the Opposite Party was given a last chance to file the Written Version
Positively, the Opposite Party was again given another last chance for
filing Written Version, else the matter would to be heard Ex-parte and
the District Commission fixed the date on 04/11/2022 for the same.
Written Version:- On 04/11/2022 the Opposite Party filed Written
Version. The Opposite Party Bank has clearly mentioned in Para-15 of the
W/V that the Complainant is entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 86,768/-
only by the deposit of the Original Demand Draft issued to him earlier
which shall be rectified and cleared by the O.P Bank but instead the
Complainant is not entitled for any amount claimed by him for monetary
loss and mental agony as there is/was no negligence on the part of the
Opposite Party nor entitled to any litigation cost or any other relief or
reliefs. The Opposite Party has instead alleged the Complainant that the
reliefs claimed by the Complainant are nothing but surmise and full of lies.
In the W.V the O.P Bank vehemently denied to the allegation made in
Para- 6 of the Complaint that the Complainant requested the Authority of
O.P. Bank several times verbally to credit the said amount into ICICI Bank
Savings Account of the Complainant. The O.P Bank held this allegation as
false, baseless and without any substance whatsoever.
According to the O.P Bank, the Complainant never at any point of time
visited the Branch Office of the Opposite Party Bank nor intimated about
the problem faced by the Complainant either verbally or in writing to the
Authority of the Opposite Party Bank nor did the complainant make any
request to the Authority of the Opposite Party Bank to credit the said
amount to his ICICI Savings Account at Bagdhara Branch, Kalimpong. The O.P Bank referring to W/V in Para- 11 has mentioned that had the
Complainant approached the O.P Bank with his Complaint, the O.P Bank
would have solved the same immediately as the matter was just a simple
technical glitch. However, the Complainant instead made a mountain out
of a mole and lodged Complaint causing unnecessary harassment to the
O.P Bank. The O.P. Bank vehemently denied to the allegation made in
Para- 7 & 8 of the Complaint as the matter was never intimated by the
Complainant to the O.P. Bank. It is further stated by the O.P Bank in his
W/V that the O.P Bank made thorough enquiry to the complaint made by
the Complainant and found that his Demand Draft with instrument No.
“057388 were dishonoured by the bank due to mismatch with the serial
number of the instrument.”
But it is clearly mentioned in Para- 15 of the W/V that the Complainant
is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 86,768/- only by the deposit of the
Original Demand Draft issued to him earlier which shall be rectified and
cleared by the O.P Bank but instead the Complainant is not entitled for any
amount claimed by him for monetary loss and mental agony as there is no
negligence on the part of the Opposite Party nor entitled to any litigation
cost or any other relief or reliefs.
Further, the Opposite Party Bank stated in W/V that the Complainant
has no prima facie case in his favour and he has filed this case just to
harass the Opposite Party intentionally levelling frivolous allegations and
raising claims against the Opposite Party for wrongful monetary gain. The
Opposite Party as such seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Evidence Stage:- During hearing of the case, the Complainant adduced
evidence and filed Written Examination-in-Chief supported by an affidavit
and further submitted documents by making Annexure.
The Opposite Party Bank filed Questionnaire against the Examination-
in-Chief of the Complainant and the Complainant also made reply to that
Questionnaire. On the contrary, the Opposite Party Bank led evidence by filing
Examination-in-Chief (O.P.W) and the Complainant filed Questionnaire
against the Examination-in-Chief of the Opposite Party. The reply to it has
been filed by the Opposite Party on 21/06/2023 and the copy of it was
received by the Complainant.
Argument:- It is revealed from the case record that on the date fixed
for argument on 27/06/2023, Ld. Advocate on behalf of both the
Complainant and the Opposite Party were present. Ld. Advocate for the
Complainant filed a B.N.A while Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party filed a
prayer for treating W/V as B.N.A of the Opposite Party and the same was
allowed. The argument was heard in full from both sides on 27/06/2023.
From the Complaint Petition, Written Version of the Opposite Party,
Evidence of both the parties and other materials on record, the following
points have been framed:-
Points to be decided:-
1. Is the Complainant a Consumer?
2. Has this District Commission ample power and jurisdiction to entertain
and decide the case?
3. Is the Opposite Party deficient in providing service towards the
Complainant?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS:
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity, avoidance of
repetition of facts, convenience for discussion and arriving at a just decision of
the case.
In order to unearth the point whether the present Complainant is a
Consumer or not, we have to scan the evidence of the Complainant and other
documents filed, and from which it is detected that the Complainant is a Savings bank account holder and Recurring deposit Account Holder with
the Opposite Party Bank.
The Complainant due to some unavoidable circumstances desired to close
his said Savings Account No. 2264625789 and Recurring deposit Account No.
3730774619 which he had been maintaining with the said O.P Bank and
accordingly submitted a letter dated 28/04/2022 to that effect. Thereafter, the
Opposite Party, after receiving the letter from the Complainant, closed the
Complainant‘s said two accounts and issued a Draft being No. 057388 dated
28/04/2022 in the favour of the Complainant to the tune of Rs.86,768/-
(Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight only), being the
balance amount in respect of both the said Account numbers.
Therefore, in our considered view, the Complainant is a Consumer under
the O.P Bank, within the meaning and definition of “Consumer” as given U/S-
2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Point Number: 1 is thus discussed and disposed of in favour of the
Complainant.
The Complainant after receiving the Draft from the Opposite Party
deposited the said Draft in his Savings Account No. 098101000923 of the ICICI
Bank, Branch Baghdhara Road, Kalimpong on 30/04/2022 and which was
initially credited in his said account number and which is also reflected in the
Bank Statement attached with the Complaint. Subsequently to the utter
surprise of the Complainant on the same date the said amount was rejected
and withdrawn by the Opposite Party Bank without assigning any reason which
is also reflected in the Bank statement of the Complainant. It is also reflected
in the message sent by ICICI bank to the Complainant.
The Complainant is residing within the territorial limit of this District
Commission and the O.P Bank is also carrying on banking business and has a
branch office at the above noted address, as mentioned in the cause title, which also falls under the territorial limit of this Commission and the
subject matter of dispute is a banking dispute under the value of Rs.50 Lakhs.
Therefore, this Commission has ample power and has both territorial as well
as pecuniary jurisdictions to entertain, try, and adjudicate the consumer
dispute.
The cause of action had arisen on 30/04/2022 and the instant case was filed
on 15/07/2022.
Therefore, the case is filed within the period of Limitation as prescribed
U/S 69 of the C.P Act, 2019.
Point Number: 2 is thus discussed and disposed of in favour of the
Complainant.
Further, in order to ascertain whether the Opposite Party was deficient or
not we have to delve into the evidence of the parties once again.
From the evidence of the Complainant as well as Opposite Party it is
evident that the Complainant was a savings bank account holder, being
Account No. 2264625789 and Recurring Deposit account holder, being Account
No:- 3730774619 respectively with the O.P Bank.
It is seen from the evidence of the Complainant that the Complainant due
to some unavoidable circumstances desired to close his said Savings Account
No. 2264625789 and Recurring Deposit Account No. 3730774619 in the said
Opposite Bank and accordingly submitted a letter dated 28/04/2022 to that
effect. Thereafter, the Opposite Party Bank after receiving the letter from the
Complainant closed the Complainant‘s said accounts and issued a Draft being
No. 057388 dated 28/04/2022 in the favour of the Complainant to the tune
of Rs.86,768/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight only),
being the balance amount in respect of both the said Account numbers. The above factum has been admitted by the O.P Bank.
It is further evident from the evidence of the Complainant and other
documentary evidence adduced by him that the Complainant after receiving
the Draft from the Opposite Party deposited the said Draft in his Savings
Account No. 098101000923 of the ICICI Bank, Branch Baghdhara Road,
Kalimpong on 30/04/2022 and which was initially credited in his said account
number. The Bank Statement of the Complainant proves the same. It is further
evident from the evidence of the Complainant and other documentary
evidence submitted by him that on the self same day the said amount was
rejected and withdrawn by the Opposite Party Bank without assigning any
reason. The Bank Statement of the Complainant and the message sent by ICICI
bank to the Complainant proves the same.
It is further stated by the Complainant that he verbally requested several
times the Authority of The Central Bank of India, Mangaldham Mission Trust
Branch, Kalimpong, i.e the O.P Bank to credit the said amount into the ICICI
savings account of the Complainant but all in vain. He made several visits to
the premises of the O.P Bank and left no stone unturned in order to resolve
the dispute, but all his efforts were futile and ineffective.
On the contrary, it is evident from the evidence led by the O.P Bank that
the O.P Bank strongly denied the fact of visiting the Bank premises by the
Complainant over the alleged disputes, but stated that had the Complainant
approached the Bank with his Complaint, the O.P Bank would have solved the
same immediately as the matter was just a simple technical glitch. The O.P
Bank vehemently denied to the allegation made in the Complaint that the
disputed matter was never been intimated by the Complainant to the O.P
Bank. However, the O.P Bank candidly stated and admitted that the O.P Bank
made thorough enquiry to the complaint made by the Complainant and found
that his Demand Draft with instrument No. 057388 were dishonoured by the
O.P Bank due to mismatch with the serial number of the instrument.The Opposite Party Bank has clearly mentioned in its evidence that the
Complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 86,768/- only by the
deposit of the Original Demand Draft issued to him earlier which would be
rectified and cleared by the O.P Bank, but the Complainant is not entitled to
any amount as claimed by him for monetary loss, mental agony, compensation
etc. as there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party, nor he is
entitled to any litigation cost or any other relief or reliefs.
During argument Ld. Advocate for the O.P clearly stated that the O.P Bank
is ready and willing to issue a fresh Bank Draft of the same amount in favour of
the Complainant, if the Complainant deposits the earlier one to the O.P Bank
and admits the technical disputes that arose unintentionally.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant also asserts that the original Bank Draft is
lying with the custody of the Complainant and he is also ready and willing to
deposit the said draft to the O.P Bank, for the purpose of issuance of a new
one, if this Commission directs so.
From the evidence of the parties and the documents annexed as evidence
it is clear to us that the problem of the Complainant which he has faced with
the Bank Draft, being No. 057388 dated 28/04/2022 drawn in favour of the
Complainant to the tune of Rs.86,768/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Seven
Hundred Sixty Eight only), being the balance amount in respect of both the said
Account No. 2264625789 and Recurring deposit Account No. 3730774619
respectively, lying with the said Opposite Party Bank was not resolved by the
Opposite Party despite being requested several times verbally to the Authority
of the Opposite Party Bank. Admittedly, the bank draft issued by the O.P Bank
developed some technical error or mistake, for which the Complainant cannot
be blemished. It is the incumbent duty of the O.P Bank to rectify the error
immediately as soon as the error was detected in the Draft. But the O.P Bank did not do its duty and as such the said draft cannot be en-cashed by the
Complainant.
Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party submitted that the Opposite Party
received a notice along with the copy of the Complaint issued by this Ld.
D.C.D.R.C, Darjeeling but the Complainant never informed/intimated to the
Opposite Party verbally or in writing to the authority to the Bank. The Ld.
Advocate for the Opposite Party stated before the Commission that it was
upon going through the complaint received by the O.P from the Ld. D.C.D.R.C,
Darjeeling, the Opposite Party came to find that the Demand Draft with
Instrument No 057388 was dishonoured by the ICICI Bank due to the
mismatch with the serial number of the Instrument. The Opposite Party has
admitted to the extent that there is a duty cast upon the Opposite Party to pay
the said amount by rectifying the old Demand draft or issuing a fresh and new
demand draft to the Complainant which can be done once the said Original
Demand draft is deposited by the Complainant to the Opposite Party for taking
necessary corrective measures. The Opposite Party has accepted that the
Complainant is entitled to receive the amount of Rs.86,768/-(Rupees Eighty Six
Thousand Seven Hundred sixty eight only), but not to reliefs claimed by the
Complainant for monetary loss, mental agony , litigation cost, or any other
relief/reliefs. But in furtherance of the detection that the said Draft was
defective, the O.P Bank did not take any proper and necessary step forward in
order to resolve the dispute.
From the evidence led by the parties and furthermore considering the
argument advanced by the parties it clearly establishes that the Opposite Party
knew about such rejection of the Demand Draft officially itself on the same
date of its rejection. It was dishonoured by the Bank due to mismatch with the
serial number of the instrument. It was the duty of the Opposite Party to
instantly cooperate with the Complainant and assisted in overcoming with the minor mistake of mismatch with the serial number of the Instrument.
Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the case we think that the
Opposite Party Bank was deficient in providing service and hence the O.P Bank
is now under obligation either to rectify the original demand draft issued to
the Complainant and pay off the draft amount or issue a new Demand Draft of
Rs.86,768/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight only) to the
Complainant in lieu of the old one.
Regarding physical visits of the premises of the O.P Bank by the
Complainant in order to settle the dispute and the O.P Bank’s stand, we are
accepting the Complainant’s view as the Complainant has been suffering alone
due to inability to en-cash the draft amount.
From the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the
Opposite Party was deficient in providing service to the complainant and the
Complainant is entitled to get relief.
Point Number: 3 is thus discussed and disposed of in favour of the
Complainant.
Now in order to ascertain the quantum of Compensation and Litigation
Cost , we are of the view that an amount of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand
only) as Compensation and an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand
only)as Litigation Cost are just, proper and appropriate in order to mitigate the
loss suffered by the complainant and for mental pain and sufferings sustained
by him and the O.P Bank is liable to pay the same within the time period as
specified hereunder.
Point Number: 4 is thus discussed and disposed of in favour of the
Complainant.
Thus, all the points have been discussed elaborately and disposed of.
Therefore, the case of the Complainant is allowed. Hence
It is ordered that:-
The Consumer Complaint, being C. C. No:- 08/2022 is allowed on contest
against the Opposite Party, but in part.
The Complainant is hereby directed to submit/deposit/place the Demand
Draft, being Draft No. 057388, dated 28/04/2022, amounting to Rs.86,768/-
(Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight only),which was
issued in favour of the Complainant), to the O.P Bank within one month from
the date of this Order.
Upon receiving the same, the Opposite Party is directed either to make
necessary rectification in the said Draft and extend its validity and clear the
original Demand Draft issued to the Complainant by it within 15 days of such
presentation or to issue a new Demand Draft amounting to Rs.86,768/-
(Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight only)in favour of the
Complainant payable at as per his choice and handover it to the Complainant
within 15 days of such presentation in lieu of the old one.
In default of presentation of the old demand draft by the Complainant to
the O.P Bank within the specified period of time, as mentioned herein above,
the Complainant is debarred from claiming any interest from the O.P Bank.
But in case of any default made by the O.P Bank, as mentioned herein
above, the O.P Bank is under obligation to pay an interest @ 6% p.a (S.I) on
Rs.86,768/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight only) to
the Complainant, which shall be calculated from the date beyond 15 days of
presentation of the Demand Draft to the O.P Bank till rectification or
issuance of a new one in lieu thereof and handed over to the Complainant. The Opposite Party Bank is further directed to pay Compensation of
Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand only) and Litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the Complainant within 45 days from the
date of this order.
In case of any default of this order, either entirely or any part hereof, the
Complainant is at liberty to file an Execution Application against the Opposite
Party as per the provision of law as laid down either U/S 71 of the C.P. Act,
2019 or may pray for penalty against the Opposite Party as per the provision
laid down U/S 72 of the said Act.
Let a free copy of this order be supplied both to the Complainant and the
Opposite party as per the provision of the C.P Act 2019 and Regulation 21 of
the Consumer Commission Procedure Regulation, 2020.
Accordingly, the case is allowed and disposed of.