Date of Hearing the 27th Day of November, 2015
Date of Judgment Wednesday, the 2nd Day of December, 2015
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) is at the instance of the Opposite Party (Union Bank of India) to impeach the Judgment/Final Order dated 20.08.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad at Berhampore (For short Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2009.
The Respondents herein being Complainants initiated the Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Act alleging that they opened a S.B. Account bearing No.54820210002023 with the Opposite Party at Berhampore Branch, Murshidabad. The Complainants withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- (date not mentioned) and again withdrew Rs.15,000/- on 11.05.2009. So, they should have a sum of Rs.1,40,539/- in their Account as remaining balance. However, when the Complainant No.1 tried to withdraw the amount by using ATM Card he received a slip from the ATM showing ‘Nil’ balance. The Complainant No.1 intimated the matter to the Bank Authority but did not taken any action. Hence, the Complaint with the prayers, viz. – (a) a direction upon the Opposite Party/Appellant to make entry of an amount of Rs.1,40,539/-; (b) a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment and mental agony and (c) litigations costs of Rs.5,000/- etc.
The Opposite Party (Bank) by filing a Written Version disputed the allegation levelled against them contending inter-alia that the Complainants opened a S.B. Account in the Bank by depositing a sum of Rs.73,100.00 on 28.02.2008. On 04.05.2009 Complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- by a cheque and after deduction of the amount there was a balance of Rs.1,46,539.00 in the account. On 11.05.2009 for the purpose of withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- Complainant No.1 submitted a cheque bearing No.559 before the Bank. The authorised staff of the Cash Counter of the Opposite Party Bank on going through the amount of the cheque in words ‘One Lakh Fifty Thousand’ made payment of Rs.1,50,000.00 to the Complainant with a noting of denomination of number of notes on the reverse side of the cheque and the Complainant No.1 acknowledged the said amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 on receiving the said sum. The Opposite Bank has submitted that the Complainant have made false allegation against the Opposite Party Bank with some ulterior motives which should be dismissed with costs.
On the basis of the materials on record and having heard the Ld. Advocates of the respective Parties to the case, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgment allowed the Consumer Complaints with direction upon the Opposite Party Bank to credit an amount of Rs.1,01,539/- in the S.B. Account of the Complainant as on 12.05.2009 together with accrued interest as per bank norms within 15 days from the date of Order failing which the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e.27.05.2009 which prompted the Opposite Party to prefer this appeal.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties and on going through the materials on record it emerges that the Complainants have a joint S.B. Account being No. 54820210002023 with the Opposite Party i.e. Union Bank of India, Baharampore Branch.
The Statement of Accounts issued dated 23.09.2013 by Opposite Party Bank in favour of the Complainants clearly indicate that on 11.05.2009 the Complainant No.1 presented a cheque before the Cash Counter of the Opposite Party Bank. The Cheque in question it reveals that the cheque was meant for payment to ‘Self’ i.e. Complainant nNo.1. It also reveals that the amount in words was written ‘One Lakh Fifty Thousand only’, while numerical figure was written as Rs.’15,000.00’ after putting an oblique and stroke upon the last figure ‘0’. The Complainant have made allegation that a sum of Rs.15,000/- only was received by the Complainant No.1 but the Opposite Party has asserted that the Cashier paid to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.
The Statement of Accounts available with the record clearly indicate that as on 26.04.2009 there was a sum of Rs.1,26,539/- was in the credit of the account of the Complainants. Admittedly on 04.05.2009 a sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn indicating remaining balance of Rs.1,16,539/-. As per Statement of Accounts a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- appears to have shown debited on 12.05.2009 showing Debit Balance of Rs.33,461.00. The Statement further goes to show that on 13.05.2009 a sum of Rs.50/- have been debited showing Debit Balance of Rs.33,511.00. An interest of Rs.1,253.00 was accrued on and from 01.02.2009 to 31.07.2009 have been credited showing Debit Balance of Rs.32,258.00 as on 03.08.2009. Therefore, the Statement of Accounts itself indicate that there was no such amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the account of the Complainant and there was no basis of receiving of Rs.1,50,000/- by the Complainant No.1 from the Cash Counter of O.P. Bank. In this regard, the submission of the Opposite Party that the customer is well known customer of the Bank and despite balance being insufficient payment was made by giving O.D. on the account of the Complainant does not appear to be acceptable.
In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant has submitted that as per provision of Negotiable Instrument Act if there is any dispute of any amount in words or in figures, amount written in words will prevail. It is quite apparent that the Complainant No.1 is not a literate person up to the mark and his handwriting is also illegible. When there was ambiguity with regard to the amount in words and in numerical figure the Bank Authority should have returned the cheque in question to the Complainant to place the same afresh after removing the defects. The Appellant Bank did not take any pain to place before the Forum the relevant Rule or Guideline of the Bank regarding acceptance of cheque. It is common knowledge and practices that if there is overwriting, interpolation or oblique mark etc. the cheque is required to be returned.
The materials on record indicate that Sri Ratnakar Murmu, (OPW 2) the then Manager of the Bank and Sri Pradip Kumar Singha Roy (OPW 1), the then Cashier of the Bank while dealing with the matter of disputed cheque have shown utter negligence and that is why at the end of the day of the relevant day’s transaction such discrepancies of short balance in their fund was noticed. In fact, both the above named employees of the Bank were responsible for such deficiency of service on the part of the Bank.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has also submitted that the Ld. District Forum have failed to take note of the fact that a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 has been paid and as such on the reverse of the said cheque there is an endorsement of 300X500 which indicates showing payment of Rs.1,50,000.00. In this regard the evidence of the Complainant No.1 is pertinent who in his cross-examination has reiterated that he received three bundles of denomination of Rs.50/- each containing 100 pieces. In spite of incisive cross-examination such statement of the Complainant No.1 could not be impeached. In this regard, the Ld. District Forum has observed, - ‘We are of considered view that such endorsement both in the front and on the reverse of the cheque are the outcome of afterthought of the Bank Authority in order to exonerate its liability. Therefore, on the basis of foregoing observations, the only conclusion that filters through, that actually on the very relevant day a sum of Rs.15,000.00 was paid through the impugned cheque across the Counter and not Rs.1,50,000.00 to the Complainant’. The observation of Ld. District Forum appears to very much relevant and I do not find any reason to hold anything contrary to the same.
Considering the materials on record and after giving consideration to the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the Parties I share the view of the Ld. District Forum that there was clear deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, particularly of the then Manager and the then Cashier of the O.P. Bank. Therefore, the Bank Authority cannot absolve its responsibility as they are vicariously liable for such unwanted and unauthorised act on the part of the above two employees. Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that there was no basis at all to show the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- being debited on 11.05.2009. The arithmetical calculation of a sum of Rs.1,01,539/- ought to have been depicted as credit balance in S.B. Account of the Complainants on 12.05.2009.
In view of the above, the appeal being meritless one deserves dismissal. In other words, the Opposite Party Bank had no occasion to prefer this appeal. The impugned Order being reasoned one and on the contrary the grounds of the appeal being devoid of merit and harassing one, the Opposite Party Bank (Appellant) must be saddled with costs which I quantify at Rs.5,000/-.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on contest with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the Appellant in favour of the Respondents i.e. Complainants of the case.
The Judgment/Final Order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mushidabad at Berhampore in Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2009 is hereby affirmed.
