JUDGEMENT

This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to regularize the PPF Account of the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

The complainant’s case in short is that he is a senior citizen having PPF Account before the O.P. No.1 bearing PPF A/c. No.263.  The complainant each and every time deposited money in his PPF account by filing up the form for deposition along with cheque issued by the Burdwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.  It is mentioned here that O.P. No.2 & 3 are the Superior Authority of the O.P. No.1.

The complainant further submit that on 13.1.2015 the complainant sent a cheque of Burdwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. bearing cheque No.007017 of Rs.50,000/- along with filled up form before the O.P. No.1 for depositing the said amount in his account and the O.P. No.1 received the same.  Thereafter, on 20.7.2015 the complainant again submitted cheque of Burdwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. of Rs.75,000/- before the O.P. No.1 for depositing the said amount in his PPF A/c. and O.P. No.1 assured the complainant that amount will be credited in the PPF A/c. of the complainant.  But after a few days the O.P. No.1 returned the cheque with filled up form to the complainant without reason.  The complainant approached to the O.P. No.1 to know the reason but the O.P. failed to give any satisfactory answer.  Thereafter the complainant sent a letter to the O.P. No.1 requesting them to accept his cheque but the O.P. No.1 neither received the cheque nor gave any reply.  It is pertinent to mention here that at that time complainant has sufficient fund in his account number (No.1321520100000489) before the Burdwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. 

The complainant also submits that he is a bonafide customer of the O.Ps. and he never done any act detrimental to the interest of the O.P. Inspite of that the O.P. No.1 without any reason retuned the cheqaue which is issued by the complainant and have not taken any steps to the grievance of the complainant.  More over the O.P. No.1 neither bother to give any reply to the letter of the complainant.  Finding no other alternatives the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relief as stated above.

            The O.P. No.1 contested this case by filing written version denying all the material allegations as stated by the complainant.  The O.P. No.1 further submit that on account of radical changes of banking system, the union Govt. more specifically postal Information Directorate for the smooth operations of its different scheme brought its organization under CBS (Core Banking Solution).  The complainant held PPF A/c. being numbered 263 which has now been converted in the change system and renumbered as A/c. No.1738138161 with the Head Post Office, Burdwan and complainant used to make his deposits through the said A/c.  From the record of this office which is maintained in due course of business it appears that the complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- on 21.1.2015 by a cheque drawn on BCCB Ltd. in his said PPF A/c. and the same was credited to his said account i.e. Burdwan Head Office was migrated to CBSD System on 20.4.2015.  After such change in system of the  Burdwan Head Office the complainant on 20.7.2015 deposited a cheque amounting to Rs.75,000/- drawn on BCCB Ltd. to the Burdwan H.O. for credit to his PPF A/c.   Unfortunately, the cheque was not accepted  in the new banking system of Head officer of the this O.P. and as such with a forwarding letter the said cheque was returned to the claimant with a request to issue a fresh cheque of the same amount for the purpose drawn on any other bank.  The claimant realized the difficulties and on 8.9.2015 deposited another cheque amounting to Rs.80,000/- for deposit and that was effective.  In such circumstances this O.P. or the said Head Office is not guilty of any negligence or caused any deficiency of service.  Under the above facts and circumstances this O.P. humbly prays that before this Forum to reject the above complaint.

DECISION WITH REASONS

            The complainant filed affidavit of examination in chief and O.P. prayed for treating the written version as evidence of O.P.  The complainant filed questionnaires and O.P. also filed reply of the questionnaires.  Therefore, heard argument of both sides.  The complainant  filed documents that he made complaint to the Sr. Post Master as to why the said cheque of Rs.75,000/- dated 20.7.2015 was returned to him.  The photocopy of the cheque and the photocopy of the relevant pages of the pass book is also filed.  From the hearing of both sides it is clear that the Burdwan Head office of the O.P. was migrated to CBSD System on 20.4.2015 and therefore, the cheque of Rs.75,000/- deposited on 20.7.2015 was not accepted in that system and the cheque was returned with forwarding letter to the claimant with a request to issue a fresh cheque for the purpose.  It is admitted by the complainant that complainant realize the same and on 8.9.2015 he deposited another cheque of Rs.80,000/- which was accepted and credited to the PPF account of the complainant though it is not mentioned in the petition of the complaint.    But from the written version and the evidence of the questionnaire it is proved by the complainant.  In reply to the questionnaire of the complainant the O.P. stated that BCCB Bank cannot directly participate in clearing MICR cheque acceptable in system.  Without MICR Code and MICR number of the HDFC Bank should be written on the cheque to make the transaction complete in the existing system.  The complainant was informed by the O.P. but complainant did not give any answer stating ‘No comment’,  in answer to such questionnaire of the O.P. it is also proved that realizing the difficulties the complainant deposited another cheqaue of Rs.80,000/- on 8.9.2015 following the direction of the O.P. bank.  Therefore, the complainant cannot claim that O.P. without any reason returned the cheque of Rs.75000/- dated 20.7.2015 or that O.P. did not bother to give any reply to the complainant over the dispute etc. We find that O.Ps. are not deficient in service and question of unfair trade practice does not arise.  So, the question of negligence and harassment to the complainant also not arise.  As a result the case fails.

Court fees paid is correct.  Hence, it is

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

                         Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                         President       

                                                                                                                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                   Jayanti Maitra (Ray)                   

                           President

                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

(Nivedita Ghosh)

Member

D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan