Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/133/2011

Ashutosh Kumar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior Branch Manager, S.B.I. A.D.B. (Agriculture Development Branch) & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kr. Jha

11 Jul 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

Complain Case No. – 133/2011

1. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra S/o Sri Mahananda Mishra Through Sri Sudhaker Jha, Mohalla- PNT Colony, Quarter No.- P II/62, Goshalla Road, Post- Ramna, P.S.- Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur……….….………………….. complainants 

V/s

1. Senior Branch Manager, S.B.I. A.D.B (Agriculture Development Branch) Chakar Madhan Chowk, P.S.- Kazimohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
2. Seniour Branch Manager I.N.G. Basay Bank Limited, Pret Bihar Brach, F/22, Pret Bihar Vikash Marg, New Delhi-110092. …………………………………………………………………..….Opposite Party.

Date of order- 11-07-2015

                                                                                                  Present.

1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                                                        President,

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

2.  Smt. Archana Singh

      Member

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

 

Advocate for complainants- Manoj Kumar Jha  

Advocates for opposite party- Rajendra Kuamr  

 

Order

           The complainant has filed this case for recovery of Rs.-39,500/- as his claim including the cheque amount Rs.-10,000/- with damageg and letigation cost against the O.P.

The case of complainant appears from complaint petition supported with an affidavit that he has deposited his account payee cheque for Rs.-10,000/- dated          01-02-2011 bearing No.-242763 issued from the branch of O.P. No.-2 in his saving A/c exist in the branch of O.P. No.-1 for inchashment bearing No.-31599250628 on           21-02-2011 which was not in cashed complainant has filed Xerox copy of cheque having no clear date of issue, passbook, petition of R.T.I., appelate petition of R.T.I and its information Annexure-1 to 5.

In this case O.P. No.-1 has filed written statement dated 18-08-2012 supported with an affidavit alleged there is that he is not responsible, he has done his duty and send the cheque for collection to the issuere branch on 09-03-2011, delay was caused due to non avilabity of signature of complainant till 04-03-2011. The said cheque was never cashed from the issuer bank O.P. No.- 2. The said fact has been acknowledged to the complainant he has further alleged that on completion of cheque he has send it for collection.

In this case O.P. No.- 2 has also filed its written statement through Muzaffarpur branch alleged their in that the case is not maintainable and the complaint has got no right to sue and the case is barred by law limitation principle of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence he has denied the several allegation of complainant made in his different pars which is under his strict proof. He has further alleged that the O.P. No.- 1 has not cleared the cheque at local level and send it to Delhi branch office for clearance which is clear violation of core banking system.  

Considering the allegation of the respective party, the admitted fact is that the complainant has deposited his cheque issued from O.P. No.-2 for its clearneance in his A/c exhist in the branch of O.P. No.-1 which was not cleared. In this regard O.P. No.-2 has submitted that the O.P. No.-1 has violated the core banking system and sent the cheque for clearneance to his branch office at Delhi, where from the cheque was issued and at the same time the O.P. No.-1 has submitted that after completion of cheque he has sent it to its branch at Delhi for clearneance.

Considering the fact circumstances material available with the record admitedly the cheque is of core banking system, which was not cleared by the O.P. No.-1 for which he was fully authorised to get debit the amount from the A/C mention in the cheque under the core banking system, which is now arises customers deficiency in service from the O.P. No.-1. Then we have no hesitation to say the O.P. No.-1 has wrongly and in his self styled manner he has sent the cheque for clearneance disobeying norms of core banking system as such he is responsible for his deficiency in service. 

Further admitally the cheque has been issued from the branch of O.P. No.-2 which was send for clearneance from the O.P. No.-1which has not been cleared, as such the O.P. No.-2 is mainly responsible for the payment of total amount of cheque with interest and has is also found liable for deficiency in service.

Accordingly we find the case of complaint is found maintainable against the both O.P.’s and both are find liable for deficiency in service as such the O.P. No.-1 is directed to pay the expenses of the case as well as mental, physical harassment happens to the complainant.

Accordingly O.P. No is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) for mental, Physical, harassment as well as litigation cost and at the same time O.P. No.- 2 is directed to pay Rs. 10,0000/- with 9% interest from the date of issued of cheque, both parties are directed to pay the amount about within 30 days of the order, otherwise the complainant is entitled to get it recover from the opposite parties from the process of the Law.

 

Member                                                                                  President