District Consumer Redressal Forum, Sambalpur
C.C.No 90 of 2013
Sushant Dash, Aged about 38 years
S/O Late Banshidhar Dash
At present Near JyotiBhawan, Samleipadar,Sakhipara,Sambalpur………………………Complainant.
Town,Po/Dist: Sambalpur,
Sambalpur Branch at V.S.S.Marg,
At/Po/Dist. Sambalpur………………………………………………………………..Opp. Party.
For Complainant : G.A. Guru and associates
For O.P. : P.K. Mohapatra
PRESENT:- SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT
SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER
SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER
Date of Order: 26/04/2019
SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT
- The case of complainant is that in the year 2007 the above named complainant along with his father Banshidhar Dash applied for a sanction of Home loan with the Opp. Party bank. After due scrutiny the Opp. Party sanctioned house building loan for RS.6,00,000/- lakhs in favour of complainant and his father Banshidar Dash. Banshidhar Dash was working under Sambalpur Municipality. On attending the age of superannuation said Banshidhar Dash retired on 30.06.2006. On being retired from the Govt. Service, he received his retired benefit a sum of Rs.63,500/- vide Govt.cheque No.98825 Dated 11.10.2010. Sri Banshidhara Dash immediately on 22.10.2012 deposited the said cheque in the said loan account. The cheque was to be sent to Govt. Treasury but instead it was sent to SBI, who returned it as wrong delivery. After the return of the cheque the O.P. was duty bound to deposit it in the Treasury. But the cheque was not deposited in the Govt. Treasury. Eventually the Opp.Party lost the cheque due to negligence.
- That, the Opp.Party Bank authority should have immediately send that said cheque for collection. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Opp.Party bank send the cheque to State Bank of India for collection where as it should have been send to the Govt. Treasury. As the cheque does not issue from any State Bank of India account; same was returned with a remark “Wrong delivery”.
- That, thereafter the bank authority did not send the aforesaid cheque for collection to Govt. Treasury and set over the matter for the reason best known to them. Further it may be mentioned here that, the Bank Authority with a ulterior motive did not inform the depositor about the return of the cheque by SBI authority.
- That, the loanees were under impression that the cheque amount of Rs.63,500/- was deposited in their loan account . But on verification it came to light that though the amount was credited to their accounts but on the very day the same was debited. When the complainant asked about the aforesaid entry in the account, the authority could not make any satisfactory answer.
- That, when Banshihar Dash could able to know about the facts, he rushed to the Bank and enquired. The bank authority impressed him that they were taking necessary steps to find out the lost cheque and send it for the re-collection. Though more than a year passed the Bank Authority neither could be able to found/traced the missing cheque and send it for collection. The said Bansidhar Dash could not sustain the pecuniary loss due to humisical action of the authority and died on 2.8.2011.
- Due to inaction of the authority though the cheque was deposited in the loan account, but same was not credited. On the other hand the Bank is charging Interest on the unpaid loan amount. The Bank Authority ought not have charged interest on Rs.63,500/- in loan a/c from 22.10.2010, when the cheque was deposited initially.
- The Bank authority after long delay could able to find the cheque and vide letter dt 2.4.2012, requested the Executive Officer, Sambalpur Municipality to revalidate the cheque issued in favour of Bansidhar Dash. Accordingly the Municipal authority revalidated the cheque.
Even after receipt of the cheque, the bank authority failed to collect the amount . Suddenly the Bank authority vide letter dt.20.6.2012, once again requested to Municipality Authority to re-issue the cheque as same has been lost. Prima facie this action of the Bank authority shows their lack of commitment towards their responsibility. A cheque which was deposited on dt.22.10.2010 was sent for collection to a wrong authority. Even though they were informed about the wrong delivery, simply then the authority set over the cheque for a period of two years. Thereafter again the Bank requested the issuing authority to revalidate. After revalidation, the instruments was lost for negligence of the Bank Authority.
- Due to aforesaid action on the part of the Bank authority, complainant was forced to pay interest on unpaid loan amount of Rs.63,500/-from dt.22.10.2010 till date for no-fault of complainant or his late father.
- The Opp.Party is liable to pay interest on Rs.63,500/- from the date of deposit i.e. 22.10.2010 till actual credit of the amount. Further the bank authority is liable to pay compensation for the latches on their part. According to the complainant the petition is within limitation and this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case.
On the basis of above the complainant prays for:-
To direct the Opp.Party to credit Rs.63,500/- to the loan a/c from the date of deposit i.e. dt.22.10.2012 till actual credit. Further to direct the Opp.Party to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony due to non deposit of cheque amount and loss of life. Further to pay a sum of Rs.25.000/- towards legal expenses.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLINANT
1. Original I.P.O bearing No. 19H 771417,19H 771418, 19H771419, 19H771420Total 4NOs of IPO each value Rs.100 X 4 = Rs.400.00
Photocopy of
2. Annexure-1 Deposit slip of PNB, Sambalpur Branch.
3. Annexure-2 Cheque returns Memo.
4. Annexure-3 Death Certificate of Sri Bansidhar Dash.
5. Annexure-4(a) Cheque of Govt.of Odisha worth Rs. 62,500.00
6. Annexure-4(b) Letter to E.O.,Sambalpur Municipality
7. Annexure -4(c) Letter to E.O,Sambalpur Municipality.
8. Annexure- 5 Letter of PNB to Sambalpur Municipality.
9. Annexure.6 (a) Letter of Sushanta Dash to C.M.,PNB Bank
10. Annexure.6 (b) Letter of Sushanta Dash to C.M,PNB,Bank
11. Annexure.6 (c)Letter of Sushanta DASh to G.M.PNB Bank
12.Annexure.6 (d) E.ail letter of Sushanta Dash and his reply by PNB Bank, Sambalpur.
13. Annexure.6 (e) E.mail of Susanta Dash to S.Kapoor.
The Opposite Party begs to file show cause/version as follows:-
- This case is not maintainable in law for non joiner of necessary parties in view of the fact that, all the legal heirs of the Bansidhar Dash along with Sambalpur Municipality have not been impleaded as parties in this case.
The contention made in Para 1,2& 3 of the complaint petition is true and hereby admitted citing human error.
- Disagrees with para 5 of complaint and defended, that the Opposite party sent the cheque for revalidation without returning the same under good faith. After receiving the revalidated cheque, the same was forwarded to State Bank of India for collection under ODBC through Mr. Madhusudan Raksa. PTS as a special messenger on 10.4.2012 and as an unforeseen event the cheque which was carried by Mr.Raksha was lost in transit and when the intimation of such loss was being reported at the branch the then officer immediately requested the Treasury Officer, Sambalpur to stop payment. Further the opposite party intimated the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sambalpur in order to issue a duplicate cheque against the aforesaid cheque. But the Executive Officer, Sambalpur Municipality denied to issue a duplicate cheque without any valid reason. Subsequently the Opp.Party approached the Treasury Officer, Sambalpur to give a certificate confirming that the cheque is still unpaid in order to intimate the same to Sambalpur Municipality for consideration of issue of duplicate cheque and further the Opp.Party assured them to bear any loss arising out of such issuance of duplicate cheque. The Treasury Officer, Sambalpur has been pleased to confirm that the cheque no.988825 dated10.10.2010 is still unpaid by them vide their Letter No.4540 dated 02.01.2013 and by way of enclosing the said letter issued by the treasury officer, the Opposite Party again requested to the ,Sambalpur Municipality to issue duplicate cheque as it is still unpaid and confirmed by the drawer, Subsequently the Opposite Party submitted an indemnity bond to indemnify all proceedings, claims, demands, expenses, losses arising due to issue of such duplicate cheque. But sambalpur Municipality did not issue a duplicate cheque in spite of several request and reminders issued by Punjab National Bank.
- Complainant’s Advocate advanced argument and filed written argument. The O.P’s Advocate is absent, neither filed written argument. From the written submission we gathered the following facts:-
- The complainants and his father took a loan from the Bank. The complainant’s father deposited a cheque of Rs.63,500/- in the loan account. This cheque was misplaced once and amount not collected due to negligence of the Bank. A revalidated cheque was issued by the drawer i.e. Sambalpur Municipality. Again this cheque was lost by the Bank. The drawer did not issue another cheque. According to the complainant the amount in the cheque is Rs.63,500/- was not credited due to negligence of the Bank. And for no fault the complainant’s loan account is saddled with the interest and non-credit of the above amount.
- The O.P. Bank case is that due to human error the cheque could not be collected. After revalidation it was lost in transition. The Bank took all steps to persuade the Sambalpur municipality authority to reissue another cheque. But failed in their attempt.
On the above two issues are framed.
- Whether the Bank is deficient in collection of the cheque.
- To what liabilities the Bank can be saddled with if found deficient.
Issue No.1
Bank is custodian of customer’s money. It is to act as per instruction given by the customer. There is no escape to it. The officials should remember that they are employed to serve or give proper service to the customer. They are the servant not the master. They cannot play with customer’s sentiment or helplessness.
From the facts narrated in the complaint petition and admitted to some extent by the O.P Bank, it is clear that the officials of the Bank callously handled the matter. They assumed the role of master. They did a big mistake by sending the cheque to SBI instead of Treasury. They successfully got the cheque revalidated; but due to their callousness the cheque could not be cleared for collection within 6 months. This mistake did not give them adequate lesson.
After revalidation, they lost the cheque in transit due to carelessness on their part. The officials tried to retrieve some lost ground by submitting indemnity bond and pursuance; but failed in their attempt to get a new cheque issued. And to hide their mistake they are blaming the Muncipality authority for non-issuance of another cheque.
It is like flogging a dead horse after all cause is lost. Hence on above basis we hold that, the concerned Bank Officials are solely responsible for this callousness shown to the complainant’s father and played with his money.
On the above count we hold that Bank is liable for the mistake committed by their officials. The Bank is deficient and failed to give proper service.
Issue No.2
The cheque for Rs.63,500/- was deposited on 22.10.2012 in the loan account but the sum was never credited with this amount . Though the bank officials committed mistake but they never bothered to settle the loan account. They merrily went on calculating interest on the total amount without deducting this cheque amount from the principal. Putting the loanee under double jeopardy.
His cheque amount was not credited and calculation of interest on the whole amount was done.
This is pure negligence, callousness of the employees for which the master i.e. the Bank is vicariously liable.
Hence we order that the Bank should redeem the loss suffered by the complainant by:-
- Crediting the cheque amount of Rs.63, 500/- to the loan account from the date of deposit i.e. 22.10.2012.
- Proportionate interest on Rs.63, 500/- charged in the loan account from 22.10.2012 be waived till date of order.
- The Bank to recover the above cheque amount from the official involved.
- The complainant has been harassed for no fault of his and the bank is liable to compensate him by paying an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and cost of litigation suffered by the complainant ,
This order is to be carried out within a month’s time failing which the above amount i.e. the
Principle amount and the interest from 22.10.2012 along with the compensation together will attract an interest of 12% from the date of passing of this order till the actual payment.
Sd/-
SHRI A.P.MUND
Sd/- PRESIDENT.
SMT S.TRIPATHY. Member I agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
SHRI K.D.DASH. Member I agree. Dictated and corrected by me.
PRESIDENT
