DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __03_ _ OF ___2018

DATE OF FILING :_8.1.2018         DATE OF PASSINJUDGEMENT:04.01.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :             Ashok Raha, son of late Rasamoy Raha of Sardar Para, Vill. Petua, P.O Subhasgram, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-700 147.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : Oriental Bank of Commerce, at Bidyadharpur P.O and P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150. Dist. South 24-Parganas.

__________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

              The moot question which seeks determination by this Forum is whether a mechanical defect in the computer system of the O.P bank can be treated as deficiency in service on the part of the O.P bank.

               The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

                The complainant issued an account payee cheque bearing no.000246 dated 28.12.2016 for a sum of Rs.278/- in favour of
A.O (Cash) , BSNL, Calcutta Telephones. The said cheque was presented before the O.P Bank i.e the banker of the complainant by Corporation Bank ,Jadavpur Branch, banker of Calcutta Telephones for clearance. The Corporation Bank sent the scan image of the cheque to the O.P bank for clearance. But the cheque was dishonoured with remark “42-paper not received”. The complainant had sufficient balance in his account maintained with the O.P Bank to honour the cheque. Still the cheque was dishonoured by the O.P Bank. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the O.P Bank, the instant case is filed by the complainant, praying for compensation of Rs.2 lac. Hence, arises the instant case.

            The O.P bank has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is mainly contended that the cheque was never presented before it by the Corporation Bank as their scanner machine developed a snack. The Corporation Bank could have presented the said cheque physically. As the cheque was not presented to them, there arises no question of negligence, if any, on their part and, therefore, the instant case should be dismissed in limini with cost.  

                Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is there any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant on the part of the O.P Bank?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

               Evidence on affidavit is filed on behalf both the parties..  BNAs  filed by the parties are also kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2 :

               It is the case of the complainant that the cheque was presented before the O.P Bank and that the O.P Bank dishonoured the cheque inspite of the fact that there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant maintained with the O.P Bank. The version of the O.P Bank is that the cheque was never presented before the bank and, therefore, there arises no occasion for clearance of the said cheque.

              We are in the age of computer and all bank transactions are now made through the system of computer. The cheque is also presented before the Bank from which collection is sought for through the computerized system with the scanner machine. Whenever a cheque is dispatched for clearance to a bank through the scanner machine, the system will automatically show whether the cheque is successfully sent or not and in that case, a print out copy will also be available from the system. That print out copy is the best evidence to prove whether the document has been successfully sent or not. In the instant case, it is the allegation of the complainant that the cheque was sent to the O.P Bank for clearance, but the O.P Bank did not give clearance of the cheque. Mere averment of the complainant in this regard appears to be not sufficient. He will have to prove it by producing cogent document. He could have produced the print out copy to prove that the cheque was successfully sent to the O.P Bank by the Corporation Bank ,but no such document has been produced by the complainant on record. Regards being had to this particular aspect of the case, we feel constrained to say that the complainant has failed to substantiate that the cheque was successfully sent to the O.P Bank by the Corporation Bank for clearance. It is the Corporation Bank who could have cited evidence to prove that the cheque was successfully sent to the O.P Bank for clearance. There is no evidence of Corporation Bank to establish this fact.

              In the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we do hold that the complainant has hopelessly failed to establish his case and, therefore, the case deserves to be dismissed.

              In the result, the case fails .

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P Bank, but without any cost.

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                                       Member              Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                           President