Tripura

StateCommission

A/29/2018

Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Bhagirath Chandra Arya - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Kajal Nandi, Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Mr. Abheek Saha

29 Sep 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.29.2018

 

 

 

1. Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Melarmath Branch, Agartala,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura- 799001.

 

2. State Bank of India,

State Bank Bhawan, 16^th floor,

Madam Cama Road,

Mumbai - 400021.

                                                          … … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

 

Vs

 

1. Sri Bhagirath Chandra Arya,

S/o Late Nalini Kumar Arya,

C/o Indra Mohan Debbarma,

Of A.A Road, Radha Madhav Sarani,

Opposite of Tarun Sangha Club,

P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin- 799007.

… … … … Respondent/Complainant.

2. United Bank of India,

Hariganga Basak Road, Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin- 799001.

 

3. United Bank of India,

11 , UBI Tower,

Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700001.

          … … … … Respondent/Opposite Party No.3 & 4.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellants:                                          Mr. Kajal Nandi, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1:                                Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya, Adv.

For the Respondent No.2 & 3:                         Absent.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:        29.09.2018.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.05.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C.139 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum held that “………the petitioner is entitled to get interest of Rs.7,648/- as calculated @ 8.5% interest for delay of late payment. He is also entitled to get Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) for deficiency of service which is to be paid equally by both the O.Ps, SBI and UBI. He is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost to be paid by SBI. Thus, SBI is to Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) and UBI is to pay Rs.10,000/- + Rs.7,648/- = 17,648/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Forty Eight) for loss of interest and deficiency of service. Payment is to be made within 2 (two) months if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.”

As there is delay in preferring the appeal, the appellants also filed an application for condoning the delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal. On the earlier date the prayer for condonation was allowed after hearing the parties and the appeal was admitted for hearing. Today the appeal is fixed for hearing.

2. Heard Mr. Kajal Nandi, Ld. Advocate for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties no.1 and 2/SBI) as well as Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya, Ld. Advocate for the respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner). None appears for the respondent no.2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.3 and 4/UBI).
3. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:

Petitioner-complainant filed one application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum alleging that on 09.11.2017, he got a cheque of United Bank of India bearing No.091273 dated 09.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.10,12,313/- from the L.A. Judge, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura. As he is a joint account holder of State Bank of India, Melarmath Branch, Agartala, he deposited the aforesaid cheque in the computer generated drop box of the said branch of SBI for encashment. On 15.11.2017, when he went to SBI, Melarmath Branch to enquire regarding encashment of the said cheque, then the bank official of the said branch told him that they did not find any cheque of him in the computer generated drop box. So it was not processed. Thereafter, the bank official found the cheque in another box. On 19.11.2017, he again went to SBI, Melarmath Branch. The SBI official returned the cheque to him with a forwarding letter of UBI Bank with remarks 'Present with document'. What document is to be presented was not mentioned. Complainant then went to the UBI, HGB Road Branch as asked by the SBI official, but the Branch Manager of UBI, HGB Road Branch humiliated him without any cause. He did not help him. Then again the complainant went to Melarmath Branch of SBI and one bank official advised him to go to Kailashahar and to deposit it to Kailashahar Branch of SBI. Complainant then went to SBI Branch, Kailashahar, but no help was provided to him. He again went to SBI, Melarmath Branch to enquire about encashment of his cheque. Finally, on 12.12.2017, cheque money was transferred to his account. Complainant was sent from pillar to post for encashment of his cheque and he has to wait for crediting the cheque amount in his account about a month and due to such deficiency of service complainant was harassed and he did not get the interest over the amount. Thus the complaint petition is filed wherein he prayed for payment of interest, legal expenses Rs.15,000 and also Rs.30,000/- for deficiency of service.

4. Opposite parties-SBI appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated that on 11.11.2017 and on 12.11.2017, the bank was closed, therefore, the cheque could not be sent for clearing on those holidays. After necessary scrutiny and entries in the concerned Registers, the high value cheque for Rs.10,12,313/- (Rupees ten lakh twelve thousand three hundred thirteen) only was sent for clearing, but the cheque was returned back with the comment ‘ Present with document’. As the same was not cleared, cheque amount was not credited into the account of the complainant. It is also stated that with a view to help the complainant and as per discussion with the complainant, the cheque was sent to Kailashahar Branch of SBI on 27.11.2017 on an understanding that as the cheque was issued by the Ld. L.A. Judge, Kailashahar drawn on UBI, Kailashahar Branch, the Kailashahar Branch of United Bank of India shall be able to clear the cheque speedily where it was cleared and the amount of the cheque was deposited on 12.12.2017.
5. Opposite party no.3 and 4, UBI in their written statement stated that as the amount of cheque was for more than Rs.10 lacs, it was not cleared and as a security measure, the complainant was asked to produce relevant documents. There was no deficiency of service by UBI and the petitioner was also not a customer of UBI.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned District Forum framed the following points to decide the case:-

1. Whether the petitioner was harassed by both the bank officials during the process of encashment of the cheque?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitle to get the compensation for deficiency of service by O.P.?

7. Complainant-petitioner produced counterfoil of receipt of the Bank, letter of Branch Manager of SBI, copy of cheque which were marked as Exhibit-1 series. Petitioner also produced his statement on affidavit and he was also cross-examined by the opposite parties.
8. Opposite parties though filed their written statement, but declined to give any evidence by way of statement on affidavit and/or producing any document.
9. On the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
10. Mr. Nandi, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum failed to consider the facts that the complainant was paid interest for delayed encashment of the cheque by the SBI, Melarmath Branch, Agartala as per norms. He further submits that the learned District Forum failed to consider that originally the cheque was returned by the UBI with comments ‘Present with documents’. Thus, the UBI is responsible, not the SBI.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Arya, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that getting interest from SBI is the right of the complainant-petitioner which they have allegedly credited in the account of the complainant. Thus the learned District Forum did not ask the State Bank of India to pay any interest, but asked for only to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. He further submits that the written statement of the State Bank of India cannot take the place of evidence and in absence of any evidence, there was no other alternative before the learned District Forum except to admit the evidence of the complainant. He has finally contended that after deposition of the cheque it was the function of the SBI to collect the same from the UBI Bank, but the SBI Authority sent the complainant from Agartala to Kailashahar and again from Kailashahar to Agartala as well as to UBI also, which itself is nothing but a harassment and deficiency of service.
12. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record from which it appears that admittedly the cheque for Rs.10,12,313/- was issued by the Ld. L.A. Judge, Kailashahar, Unakoti in favour of the complainant and the cheque was payable at any branch of UBI and it is also admitted fact that the cheque was deposited at Agartala Branch where the complainant was holding account. It was initially deposited on 10.11.2017 and then again on 15.11.2017. The learned District Forum in Paragraph-10 and 11 of its judgment gave the detailed reasons for passing the impugned judgment which are as follows:-

“ 10. We have gone through the return memo report dated 16.11.17. In that return memo report it is written that 'Present with document'. As petitioner was unable to present the cheque with document so petitioner could not encash the amount and cheque was returned to him. From the evidence of the petitioner it is found that petitioner then went to SBI branch and then UBI Branch. It is stated that he was humiliated by SBI, UBI Branch officials and thereafter on 20.11.17 he went to SBI, Melarmath Branch to find out a way. Bank official told that if the cheque was sent to SBI, Kailashahar Branch then cheque would be encashed after 2 to 3 months. So, he submitted the cheque on 20.11.2017 and after few days on 27.11.17 he went to SBI Melarmath Branch but the official did not cooperate and harassed him. Then he went to Kailashahar Branch of SBI. He also went to UBI, Kailashahar Branch but the official did not render any help. From the evidence it is found that petitioner was harassed and he asked to produce documents but what documents is to produced not disclosed to him. So in a helpless position he had to run to Kailashahar and Agartala Branches again and again and the bank officials harassed him for no cause. It is found that the petitioner produced Adhar Card, Election Identity Card, PAN Card and he is an account holder. Inspite of that the cheque was not encashed.

11. UBI in the written statement stated that as the amount of cheque is above Rs.10 lac so for security complainant was asked to produce relevant documents. But what are the relevant documents not stated to complainant. When the complainant went to their Branch the Branch officials harassed him and did not disclose the name of documents to be furnished. Ultimately on 12.12.2017 after about 2 months the cheque was encashed. For about 2 months petitioner had to run from pillar to post for encashment of the cheque. He was unnecessarily harassed by the O.Ps banks officials. He did not get the interest over the amount. It is clear that the petitioner was harassed for encashment of the cheque. Petitioner was account holder of Melarmath Branch of SBI. So he deposited the amount of cheque against his account at Melarmath Branch. Melarmath Branch officials is to collect the amount. But from the computer generated letter it is found that the Melarmath Branch of SBI unable to obtain payment of the enclosed cheque and asked him to present with documents. What documents is to furnish not stated. It was not told how it will be encashed after return. On 19.11.2017 cheque was deposited in the Melarmath Branch. Thereafter Melarmath Branch sent the cheque to the Kailashahar Branch of SBI for collection. It could have been done in the first occasion. Petitioner was asked to go to Kailashahar for enquery for approach. In this electronic days it is not necessary to send the cheque to Kailashahar Branch for encashment of amount. Amount could have been drawn through computerized system from Agartala within 48 hours. But it was not done. The hard copy was sent by post to Kailashahar Branch and the UBI Branch of Kailashahar where the amount was lying also did not clear it and took more than 2 months time for clearance. This is deficiency of service by both the UBI and SBI officials. Due to such deficiency of service petitioner suffered.” 

13.  From the order of the learned District Forum dated 04.04.2018 it appears that OP side declined to give evidence which is also mentioned in the impugned judgment. We are of the view that Mr. Arya rightly contended that written statement cannot take the place of evidence and in absence of any evidence on the part of the opposite parties, the learned District Forum had no other alternative except to admit the allegations of the complainant. We are in agreement with Mr. Arya, Ld. Counsel that mere filing of written statement is not enough unless evidence is adduce by a party to disprove the contention made by the complainant in the complaint petition. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that the opposite parties though filed their written statement, but did not adduce any evidence in support of their contention in their written statement, meaning thereby, they have admitted the contention made by the complainant in his evidence. We are of the further view that the grounds taken up by the appellants-SBI i.e. opposite party no.1 and 2 in no way help them in absence of any evidence in support of their contention in the written statement. More so, according to us, the learned District Forum rightly held that the opposite party-SBI is responsible for deficiency of service and harassment to the complainant. Thus, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment.

As Mr. Arya has submitted that the opposite party no.3 and 4, UBI has already complied with the direction given to them by the learned District Forum, it is not necessary on our part to say anything about the opposite party no.3 and 4.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

    

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura