IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Hearing:08.07.2021

Date of Decision:04.08.2021

First Appeal No. 475/2015

First Appeal No. 476/2015

IN THE MATTER OF

FA-475/2015

THE FEDRAL BANK LIMITED

1001, Faiz Road, Arya Samaj

Road Crossing,

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005

(Through: Chief Manager)….Appellant

VERSUS

SH. SUNIL GOEL

S/o Shri Jai Prakash

R/o 1094/3, Sat Nagar,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005                                                     ....Respondent

FA-476/2015

THE FEDRAL BANK LIMITED

1001, Faiz Road, Arya Samaj

Road Crossing,

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005

(Through: Chief Manager)….Appellant

VERSUS

SH. SUNIL GOEL

S/o Shri Jai Prakash

R/o 1094/3, Sat Nagar,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005                                                     ....Respondent

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?             Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                        Yes

Present:          Sh. Dilip Pollakot, Counsel for the appellant

                        Sh. Surender Gupta, Counsel for the respondent

PER: ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.                The order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central) disposing of by a common order two complaints bearing numbers C-319/2012 and C-320/2012 in the matter of Sunil Goel versus Federal Bank, with a direction to the Bank as under:-

In C-319/2012

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with interest at the saving bank rate as applicable from time to time w.e.f. 13.02.2012 till payment;
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 8,000/- cost of litigation.

In C-320/2012

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation.

has been assailed by way of appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the Federal Bank, for short appellant, against Sh. Sunil Goel resident of New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as respondents, alleging that the impugned judgment suffers from inconsistency both on facts and on law and praying for setting aside the order and for dismissal of the complaints. Parties in both the cases being same and cause of action being identical these two appeals are being disposed of by a common order.

2.                   Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the two appeals are these.
3.                   The respondent having found the credit of Rs. 30,000/- not having been done by the appellant deposited by him on 13.02.2012 alleged deficiency of service on their part. In the second case the complainant and respondent herein, having a savings bank account no. 13820100006242 in the Appellant bank issued a cheque bearing no. 0478767 dated 13.06.2012 in the name of M/s S.S. Construction Company towards the liability of payment to the said company but when the said company presented the cheque for clearance, the said cheque was dishonoured by the appellant/OP with remarks “Insufficient funds”. The allegation of the respondent/complainant is that the when he cheque was issued on 13.06.2012 in the name of M/s S.S. Construction Company sufficient balance was not found in his account as the said cheque was issued in anticipation of proceeds of some cheques deposited. But the averment of the appellant is that the cheque deposited by respondent earlier was not credited due to technical reasons. As a consequence thereof the cheque issued in favour of M/s S.S. Construction could not be honoured. The appellant has alleged that the account holder is expected to draw cheque on his account only when there is clear withdrawable amount available in the account. The respondent having grievance of return of the cheque bearing no. 048767 dated 13.06.2012 in the name of M/s S.S Construction Company, filed a complaint no. 320/2012 in the ld. District Forum.
4.                   The averment of the appellant is that as per the normal procedure the clearing cheques deposited in ATM drop box are taken out next day and then presented for clearing. The funds are credited to the account holder on the eve of the next working day. In present case cheques deposited on 14.06.2012 evening were sent for clearing from the branch on 15.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 being  Saturday, the funds could be cleared only on 18.06.2012 morning. The clearing presentation of the above mentioned cheques were delayed due to network failure in the clearing branch on 15.06.2012. Infact the clearing cheques were presented for clearing only on 16.06.2012 and the credit of the cheques were released only on 18.06.2012 evening. Meanwhile, the respondent/complainant without confirming the clear balance which could be withdrawn/available in the account issued a cheque no 1004876 dated 13.06.2012 for Rs. 2,50,000/- in anticipation of credit of these clearing cheques. Their submission is as per N.I. Act, Section 31, bank is obliged to honour the cheque issued by a customer and for that the customer has to maintain clear balance in his account before issuance of cheque from his account. In this case customer had issued cheque on 13.06.2012 before depositing the clearing cheques in his account.
5.                   The respondent had issued a cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- on 13.06.2012 which cheque was presented on 18.06.2012 when the account was not having sufficient withdrawable balance and hence it was returned with the remark “Insufficient Fund”.
6.                   The version of the appellant is that there was no intention nor any motive could be attributed in the matter as whatever happened was owing to technical glitch. Hence holding that there existed deficiency against the appellant bank would be highly inappropriate but the District Forum before whom the complaint was filed has concluded and held that there existed deficiency on the part of the bank and consequently appellant have been directed to pay the compensation for the deficiency done. Aggrieved by this order so passed this appeal has been filed praying for setting aside the order.
7.                   The respondents were noticed on both the appeals and in response thereto they have filed the reply denying the allegation and reiterating their averments and prayed for dismissal of the appeal and for upholding of the orders.
8.                   These appeals were listed before this Commission for final hearing on 08.07.2021 when the counsel for both sides appeared and advanced their arguments in support of their pleadings, the appellant for setting aside the order and the respondents for upholding of the order. I have perused the records of the case and given my consideration to the rival contentions raised
9.       Short question for adjudication in these two appeals is whether there exists any infirmity in the orders impugned. This leads to another question whether there was any deficiency on the part of the Bank as held by the District Forum. It is an undisputed fact that the respondents had deposited Rs. 30,000/- which amount was not credited. The fact that the amount was deposited is established by the receipt lying in the records. Action of the Bank in the facts and circumstances of the case was inappropriate in which case the decision of the District Forum cannot be faulted with.
10.       However in the second case, shorn of superfluities, the respondents cannot be held to have observed due precaution. While issuing cheque the lest one is expected is to ensure whether the requisite drawable amount is lying in the account or not. If the cheque deposited by him has not been cleared, for whatever reason and sometimes it is not non-availability or shortage of amount, it can be for other reasons the Bank cannot honour the cheque so presented. If the respondents have not observed due precaution expected of an account holder, verifying the availability of amount before issuing cheque, he is not entitled to for any relief. To this extent order passed by the District Forum cannot sustain and it is accordingly set aside.   
11.       In the facts and circumstances of the case the orders of the District Forum passed in C-319/2012 are upheld and the appellants are directed to make the payment as ordered within one month from the date of receipt of this order. However in the second case the orders of the District Forum are set aside as there exists no deficiency on the part of the bank.
12.       Ordered accordingly
13.       A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Forum for information. Original order be kept in FA-475/2015. Registrar is requested to place on record certified copy of this order in the other case, FA-476/2015.
14.       File be consigned to records after returning the two filed from the District Forum.

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

MEMBER

PRONOUNCED ON

04.08.2021

sl