26.10.2017

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          In the instant Appeal, the Appellant/Complainant challenged the judgment and order dated 25.07.2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum in Complaint Case No. 126/2016 wherein the Ld. District Forum directed dismissal of the complaint on contest. 

          The case, in brief, was that the Appellant/Complainant, a chartered accountant and the holder of a personal bank overdraft account bearing No. 32205472226 in Respondent/O.P. – Bank since the year 2008, issued in the month of August, 2014, three number of cheques against his existing liabilities towards credit card payment involving amount of Rs.2,000/- Rs.3,300/- and Rs.18,000/-, all drawn on the Respondent/O.P. bank when the overdraft facility of Rs.94,000/- was available with the aforesaid account.

          The Appellant/Complainant who was having a good track record of repaying to the Respondent/O.P. – Bank was astonished on receipt of information from all the paying banks that the said three cheques were bounced.  In order to avoid any step under relevant provisions of the N. I. Act, which might be taken against the criminal offence unknowingly committed by him, the Appellant/Complainant took immediate step for repayment of the outstanding dues against his credit card and rushed to the Respondent/O.P. Bank to make himself aware of the reasons for his cheques being dishonoured although he had a very good track record of repayment of outstanding dues so far since creation of the account. 

          The Respondent/O.P. – Bank replied that the account of the Appellant/Complainant had since been closed as the said account was not proposed by the holder for annual renewal and the Appellant/Complainant was duly intimated about such closure. 

          There was, in fact, no prior intimation of closure of the subject account, as claimed by the Respondents/O.Ps which left sufficient reasons for the Appellant/Complainant to be aggrieved.  The Appellant/Complainant, accordingly, filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum.  The impugned judgment and order was passed in the said complaint case.

          Heard the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.

          The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant submitted the subject matter of the complaint exactly in the same line as narrated above. 

          As submitted, it was the prerogative of the bank to decide on closure of any account but a fair service always warrants due assistance from the service provider so that the interest of their consumers are properly protected or ensured.  On the instant occasion, as the Ld. Advocate continued, the Respondents/O.Ps decided on sudden closure of the account without giving due intimation to the Appellant/Complainant.

          In the above situation, as the Ld. Advocate continued, out of impression about the account remaining as it was, the Appellant/Complainant issued three cheques which for obvious reasons got bounced and thereby made the Appellant/Complainant commit very unknowingly a criminal offence under relevant provision of the N. I. Act.

          Had there been any advance intimation about closure of the account, the Appellant/Complainant would not have committed the aforesaid criminal offence by issuing cheques drawn on the said account.  The Respondents/O.Ps, therefore, committed a serious deficiency by not communicating to the Appellant/Complainant a vital information.

          The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the aforesaid deficiency on the part of the Respondents/O.Ps made the Appellant/Complainant committed an offence which might have even put him behind the bar jeopardizing his earning livelihood for himself and his family. 

          That apart, as the Ld. Advocate maintained, the alleged bouncing of cheques put the Appellant/Complainant in utter humiliation jeopardizing his social status. 

          The Ld. Advocate further brought to the notice of the Bench that the Respondent/O.P’s alleged inaction led to the recording of the name of the Appellant/Complainant in the CIBIL which debarred him from getting further financial assistance from other financial institutions and thereby put the Appellant/Complainant in an economic setback too. 

          Such being the circumstances, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order and pass an order directing the Respondents/O.Ps to pay the cost and compensation as prayed for in the complaint.

          The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/O.P. submitted per contra that the Appellant/Complainant preferred not to renew his account beyond 21.08.2014.

          Drawing attention of the Bench to Exhibit – ‘A’ in his BNA, page 5, being the letter dated 20.07.2013 of the Respondent/O.P – Bank addressed to the Appellant/Complainant, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the letter was indicative about such renewal of his accounts with his validity remaining till 21.08.2014.  No further communication towards extension of the renewal beyond 21.08.2014 could be found in the record.  Therefore, the subject account, as submitted, died a natural death and the Appellant/Complainant being a chartered accountant by profession, was capable enough to understand the implication of non-renewal of the account.  The Appellant/Complainant, in the aforesaid circumstances, himself was responsible for his act of issuing cheques in respect of his non-existent account.  There was, therefore, no deficiency on the part of the Respondent/Complainant.

          Drawing further attention to the running page 24 of the case record, being the statement of account dated September, 2014, the Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the Respondent/Complainant, in the footnote of the said statement, was duly communicated about the closure of the account.  As submitted, the instant complaint was a ploy of the Appellant/Complainant for deriving undue financial benefits in the form of cost and compensation as claimed in the complaint. 

          The appeal, as submitted, deserved to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order in the facts and circumstances narrated above. 

          In reply, the Appellant/Complainant submitted that barring for the last action, account in question was auto renewed.  No proposal for renewal of the same was sent to the Respondent/O.P. – Bank from the Appellant/Complainant.

          Perused the papers on record.  Consulted the LCR.  It appeared that the last communication dated 20.07.2013 of the Respondent/O.P. was a one sided communication informing the Appellant/Complainant about renewal of the account in question.  The communication did not appear to be in response to any communication proposing for renewal of the subject account by the Appellant/Complainant.  The record also did not reveal about exchange of communications proposing for renewal of the subject account and affirmation towards the same in any of the previous years since its creation between the Appellant/Complainant and the Respondent/O.P. respectively.  Survival of the subject account without such communication being exchanged in previous years between the parties, lead us to conclude that the subject account was auto renewal in nature.  Further, the plea of the Respondent/O.P. – Bank towards communicating the information about the closure of the account through the bank statement at running page 24, did not seem to be having any feasible reason for acceptance as the account statement in question was issued, as it revealed from the footnote of the said statement, on 06.09.2014, i.e. much after the cheques, subsequently bounced, were issued. 

          It has now become very clear that the subject account was closed suddenly by the Respondent/O.P. – Bank without giving an intimation to the Appellant/Complainant.  Accordingly, it was also an undisputed conclusion that the Appellant/Complainant issued the disputed cheques without having any knowledge about the closed status of the said account and accordingly, not knowing that the cheques could be bounced.

          Such being the circumstances, we do not have any qualms to conclude that there was palpable deficiency in rendering services to the Appellant/Complainant by the Respondents/O.Ps which put the Appellant/Complainant in so serious a situation that might have put him in various legal complicacy for committing a criminal offence which he was, in no way, responsible for.

          The Appellant/Complainant, however, in his complaint has claimed the cost and compensation against the aforesaid deficiency at a considerably higher side which we are not at one with. 

          Hence, ordered, that the appeal is allowed in part.  The Respondents/O.Ps are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant.  They are also directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the Appellant/Complainant. 

          The entire amount has to be paid to the Appellant/Complainant within 45 days, in default, simple interest @9% per annum shall accrue to the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- only from the date of default till the amount are fully realized.  The impugned order stands set aside. 

          LCR be returned forthwith.