DATE OF FILING : 13-02-2013. DATE OF S/R : 14-03-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 18-07-2013. Sri Hridaya Shaw of 277/B, Chakpara Road, Mansatala Colony, Howrah,-------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - Oriental Bank of Commerce of 113, Sri Aurobinda Road, Bandhaghat, Salkia, Howrah – 711106.------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The complainant Shri Hridaya Show by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, as amended up to date has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the o.p. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bandhaghata, Salkia, District – Howrah, ro pay Rs. 50,000/- against cheque amount and Rs. 17/- which has debited from the bank account of the complainant on their own accord as well as interest @ 12% from the date of such debit and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs for prolonged harassment and several mental agony including Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief/s. 2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant is a savings bank account holder having account no. 06262010033710 with the M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce deposited a cheque on 13-09-2010 being no. 190484 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- to the said bank as received from M/S. Daga Engineering being the terminal benefit after retrenchment/ terminated from service. The said cheque was encashed on 14-09-2010 subsequently debited from the complaiant’s account on 15-09-2010 with further deduction of Rs. 17/- as return charge as noticed from the pass book of the complainant with the remarks written as ‘reject :- 190484:-U’, in spite of the facts that the bank authority even did not care to return the received dishonoured cheque to the complainant as per norms. Moreover, the complainant made several correspondences personally / through his ld. Advocate and issue notices to the O.P. on the dated 04-05-2012, 11-06-2012 requesting to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs 17/- which was debited by the O.P. from the account of the complainant, on their own accord but all attempts are in vain. Subsequently the O.P. through his letter dated 26-06-2012 against letter dated 11-06-2012 of the complainant stated that the said cheque was returned back due to insufficient fund on 15-09-2010 to the petitioner vide his letter no. 8668/10 through postal along with dishonoured cheque as deposited (alleged ). The said cheque is yet to receive by the complainant as per his statement made at the time of lodging this complaint. Several correspondences were made analogously in between complainant/ or his ld. Advocate with the O.P. but no fruitful action was achieved. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this complaint before the Forum praying for relief and compensation. 3. Notice was served upon the O.P. through registered post with A/D along with the complaint of the complainant on the 18-02-2013 and the same was received by the O.P. on 23-02-2013 as per record and the O.P. even after received the notice did not appear / submit written version for which the case was heard ex parte. 4. Upon pleadings of both parties three points arose for determination : i) Whether the complainant is a consumer and the case is maintainable before this Forum ? ii) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. for not taking proper action on his part ? iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. From the complaint/petition affidavit and documents filed by the complainant, this is no doubt about it that O.P. neglected his part of duty towards the complainant with all unfairness . The complainant having been terminated from service passing very hard days with acute financial crisis received a cheque from his parent employer against his terminal benefit, subsequently deposited the same to the O.P. on 13.09.2010 and encashed on 14.09.2010 duly credited in the A/c of the complainant and subsequently debited on 15.09.2013 with an additional charge of Rs. 17/- towards cheque return charges. As per record available in hands it is noticed that the complainant in-spite of repeated request made through legal counsel/personal intervention the O.P. did not take due care for giving suitable reply regarding debited the encash amount from the A/c of the complainant in their own accord. Had it been so it is moral duty of O.P. i.e. Bank Authority to return the cheque on emergent basis so that the complainant will take prompt action for revalidated the dishounoured cheque in question. But the callous action of Bank Authority after elapsing the considerable days allegedly return the cheque to the complainant. as it is informed vide their docket No. 8668/10 which actually did not received by the complainant. till date as per record. More over the Bank Authority being law knowing entity/ person knows fully well that, as per the Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act 1861 the case of non-encashment of any cheque/ dishounour cheque the person have to sent the claim notice within 15 days from the date of the same return and as such even of the said cheque was return back to the petitioner, the same has lost its validity and the petitioner shall suffer by any means. Moreover, every letter/parcel have to send under Regd. Cover not under postal certificate, but in this case the O.P. failed to act accordingly. Regarding maintainability of this Forum instead before the banking ombudsman it is to be stated that the case is quite maintainable in view of the Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein it has been laid down that the provision of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogations of the provision of any other law for the time being in force . Therefore the provision of the Act give the consumer and additional expeditious remedy in as much as the complainant deposited a cheque to the O.P. duly recognized and encash the same on 14.09.2010 the complainant. become the consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. That apart the conduct of the O.P. comes within the preview under Sec. 2(1) ( v ) i.e. unfair trade practice . The O.P. in fact made a mockery of the existing law in force in adapting unfair method and deceptive practice in withholding the dishonoured cheque of the complainant for insufficient fund of the O.P. as alleged. Therefore in view of the settled principle of law on this score after the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the dispute of the exclusion of jurisdiction of this Forum for incorporation of banking laws/ banking ombudsmen does not arise for which the case is quite maintainable. The point is accordingly disposed of. Moreover in spite of receiving summon on the dated 23.02.2013 the O.P. neither appeared nor submit any written version, so there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant by way of adopting unfairness, O.P. has harassed the complainant beyond any explanation which should not be allowed to be perpetuated . Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit with costs against O.P. Points under consideration are accordingly disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 39 of 2013 ( HDF 39 of 2013 ) be allowed exparte against o.p. with cost. The O.P. be directed to credit the cheque amount of Rs. 50,000 and deduction amount of Rs. 17/- to the A/c of the complainant bearing No. 06262010033710 ( the said amount was deposited by the complainant on 13.09.2010 which was encashed on 14.09.2010). The O.P. be further directed to pay interest to the aforesaid amount @ 9% P.A from 14.09.2010 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The complainant do get an award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for prolonged harassment and mental agony and Rs. 2000/- as litigation costs from the O.P. within one month from the date of this order. The entire amount shall be paid by the O.P. to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing of which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be levied on the unpaid amount till realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( P. K. Chatterjee ) ( P. K. Chatterjee) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
