Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that complainant is operating an account bearing no. 10861885262 in the State Bank of India, Collectorate Compound, Cuttack (O.P.No.2). It is alleged that on 20.6.2011, he issued a cheque for Rs. 1000/- in favour of one Nitai Chandra Nanda, who presented the cheque before the O.P.No.2 on 17.7.2011, but the cheque was bounced with a remark that ‘funds insufficient, available balance is zero’. The complainant alleged that he has sufficient funds in his account. It is alleged that the opposite party no.2 returned the cheque with the above remarks. It is also alleged that for bouncing of the cheque, the complainant had to pay Rs.1250/- more to the said N.C.Nanda over and above Rs.1000/-. It is also alleged that in spite of the representation to O.P.No.2, he has not received any reply from the bank. Since the complainant sustained loss and suffered humiliation, filed the complaint before the learned District Forum.
4. The opposite party filed written version stating that vide letter dated 1.2.2011, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Koraput was asked to stop operation of withdrawal from the account of the complainant, the cheque was not allowed to be encashed and the same was returned with a remark that ‘funds insufficient’.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxxxxx xxxxxx
In course of argument, the learned counsel for the Opp. Parties submitted that the complainant is working as police officer and since he has been implicated in a vigilance case the authorities instructed the O.P. Bank to withhold the transactions in the account of the complainant as per provisions conferred upon them under section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has filed letter No. 49 dated 1.2.2011 of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Koraput Division-Jeypore (Annexure-A) wherein the concerned S.P. has instructed to O.P. No.2 not to allow any withdrawal from the bank account of the complainant till clearance from his office as the inquiry is under progress. Learned counsel for the complainant by referring to Section 18 of the P.C.Act submitted that the S.P., Vigilance has no authority to freeze the account of the complainant. We perused to the said provision. Though there is no specific provision in Section 18 to freeze the bank account but the bank should not have disobeyed the instruction of the S.P. and allowed withdrawal from the account of the complainant. The bank has acted on the aforesaid letter of the S.P.,Vigilance and therefore it cannot be said that the bank has committed deficiency in service. If the bank could have disallowed withdrawal from the account of the complainant intentionally or without any authority, certainly in that situation the bank would have committed deficiency in service. So in our opinion since the bank has acted on the instruction of the S.P.,Vigilance, it committed no deficiency in service.
In the result therefore the complaint filed by the complainant merits no consideration and it stands dismissed.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the fact that the complainant had already submitted a cheque and by that time, he was not aware of the Vigilance case. However, the authority concerned has not followed the principle of procedure and filed a Vigilance case. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant submitted that his grievance is only that the bounced cheque should not have the remark of ‘insufficient money, but should have ground if at all this account is involved with criminal case. He however, submitted that learned District Forum instead of dismissing the complaint should have allowed the same.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that due to instruction of the Vigilance Department, money was not encashed but by mistake the remark as mentioned in the cheque bounce as ‘funds insufficient, available balance is zero’ due to involvement in Vigilance case. Due to such instruction, there is no mistake in the record.
8. Considered the submissions, perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant has submitted a cheque, but the same was bounced on the ground that he has ‘insufficient fund’ in his account. But it is revealed from the evidence of both the parties that money was withdrawn before the cheque was submitted on 17.7.2011 whereas in the written version, it is stated that the Vigilance Department has stayed the payment from the account of the complainant in July, 2011. When there is letter of the S.P., Vigilance, it is the duty of the opposite party-Bank to obey and accordingly, the opposite party-Bank obeyed the advice of the S.P.,Vigilance Department, but the cheque was bounced with a remark ‘insufficient fund, available balance is zero’. The observation of such remark by the Bank is not correct, it should have stated that for which the cheque is bounced. Basing on some other materials, the bank should not have given a remark that cheque is bounced with ‘insufficient fund’. The simple reason observed is that the consumer must know the true status of his money and property and also the presentation of the document.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order being illegal and perverse, should be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside.
11. The appeal stands allowed. No Cost.
We direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) to the complainant for the deficiency in service.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
