This appeal is directed against the final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri on 28/8/2015 in connection with CC no. 6/S/2014. The appeal case in nut shell is that the appellant Tuhina Das had a savings bank account bearing no. 10367750882 at State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch, Siliguri. She also purchased a life insurance policy by making payment of annual premium of rupees 7745. In order to make payment of the said premium to L.I.C., Sevoke Road Branch, Siliguri, the appellant has issued a cheque in favour of the L.I.C. drawn on State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch. The Cheque dated 7/8/2013 of rupees 7745 was deposited by L.I.C. to its banker for collection of the cheque amount which was returned as dishonoured due to insufficient of fund and it was communicated to the appellant vide annexure no. 2. The L.I.C for not realization of such premium amount the policy has declared as cancelled and it was communicated to the appellant who subsequently revived the said policy by fresh remittance of rupees 7892 inclusive of bank charges of rupees 147 which was deducted from the account  of L.I.C for dishonourment of cheque issued by the appellant. Then the appellant came to the State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch and met the manager of the said branch and wanted to know as to why the cheque was dishonoured. The bank could not pay any heed to the appellant. So, she registered a consumer complaint before Ld. D.C.D.R.F, siliguri, claimed compensation against the State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch. The  said complaint case was registered against State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch and L.I.C, sevoke road branch as opposite party no. 1 and 2. The O.P no. 1 State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch has contested the case by W.V. and denied all the allegations leveled against the bank  by the appellant/ complainant and their positive case is that the appellant/ complainant was failed to submit the required KYC to update her personal details in order to operate the said savings bank account and  for that reason the cheque was dishonoured.

The further case of the State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch is that the cheque number 501801 dated 07/08/2013 was returned back to the L.I.C not for insufficient of fund but for differ the signature and for that reason, the case of the complainant was liable to be dismissed. The L.I.C has contested the case and stated that the L.I.C has nothing to do in this  regard as because the cheque which was issued in favour of L.I.C, was deposited in time for encashment but the L.I.C could not encash the said cheque as it was dishonoured by the bank and for that reason they had cancelled the policy which was revived subsequently. There was no deficiency on the part of the L.I.C towards the complainant/appellant. The State Consumer Complaint was adjudicated in presence of all parties to that case and Ld. Forum has dismissed  the consumer complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency of service of the part of the State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch and no relief was granted against State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch and for that reason  the consumer complaint was dismissed.  Being aggrieved with the said order the complainant Tuhina Das has approached the state commission  by appeal with a prayer to set aside the final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, to the grounds that the Ld. Forum has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and failed to appreciate the actual position of law and has committed an error in the delivery of final order. The appeal was admitted before the Bench of Hon’ble State Commission, Calcutta where State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch and L.I.C Sevoke Road Branch recorded their appearances through Ld. Advocates and thereafter the case is reassigned here while the appellant/complainant and O.P no 2 L.I.C recorded their appearances through Ld. Advocates but State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch did not turn up to contest the appeal case before this Commission. This Circuit Bench has thereafter asked the appellant to inform the date of hearing appeal to the State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch so that they can get an opportunity of hearing the appeal before final adjudication of the appeal. In spite of such notice, State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch did not contest the appeal. The appeal is heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of complainant and in presence of Ld. Advocate of L.I.C, Sevoke Road branch.

Decision with reasons

Admitted position is that the appellant/complainant holds a savings bank account bearing no. 10367750882 at  State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch having full facilities using cheques and in order to make payment of L.I.C premium, she drawn a cheque in favour of L.I.C for making payment of premium of rupees 7745 in favour of L.I.C through her account no. 10367750882 but the said cheque was dishonoured by an endorsement of Bank “insufficient of fund”. The status of dishonour of cheque on the part of the Bank was communicated to the appellant/complainant by L.I.C vide letter dated 13/8/2013 against the said dishonour of cheque on the part of the bank. The complainant/appellant Tuhina Das recorded her protest by a letter (annexure no. 3) dated 5/9/2013, where she mentioned that in spite of sufficient fund in her account, the Bank has intentionally dishonored the cheque which was gross-negligence on the part of the bank and in order to revive and regularize said insurance policy, the complainant had to make a payment of additional charges unnecessarily due to fault on the part of the Bank. The State bank of India in their W.V. mentioned that the cheque was dishonoured not due to insufficient of found but on the ground of Signature Differs in the cheque. During the course of argument, it is brought to our notice that the returned memo of cheque was not produced before the Ld. Forum at the time of disposal of the Consumer Complaint. The L.I.C vide annexure no. 2 dated 13/8/2013 inform the appellant/complainant that the cheque was bounced for insufficient of fund. The bank could not furnish any documents or copy of any return memo to prove the signature of the drawer/account holder differs and that reason; the cheque was bounced. The State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch has not challenged the written version of L.I.C regarding authenticity of annexure 2. The bank in order to suppress the latches on their part took an alibi that the actual name of complainant/appellant is Tuhina Ghosh known an after marriage instead of Tuhina Das and for that reason, the signature of Tuhina Das in that cheque could not be accepted on the part of the Bank  and for that reason the cheque was dishonored. This averment has no practical impact as because bank has issued the cheque book in the name of Tuhina Das, and ATM card also issued in the name of Tuhina Das and not Tuhina Ghosh. Before marriage she was known as Tuhina Das and even after marriage she was operating the said account as Tuhina Das. There was no objection on the part of the bank. Bank had ample scope before dishonor of the cheque to inquire directly from Tuhina Das to confirm whether she has issued the said cheque in favour of L.I.C. L.I.C is an organization of high repute and to realize the premium from insured person, the cheque was deposited by the L.I.C before Axis Bank for collection of the cheque and L.I.C also has deprived to realise the said premium in due time from a bona fide person. Not only the dishonour of the said cheque, the Life Insurance Policy coverage become non performing and the appellant/complainant in order to revive the said policy had to pay extra charges.

According to provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, there is penal provision, if any cheque drawn by a person and the same is bounced for insufficient of fund or the amount of the cheque exceeded the amount deposited in the said fund. Bringing Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act appears to be inculcated faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting the business on negotiable Instrument Act. So, before returning any cheque without releasing the fund, the Bank Authority should be very careful and returning cheque haphazardly only for other ground with an endorsement “insufficient of fund” is also a negligent act on the part of banking Authority and this type of lackadaisical attitude on the part of the banking Authority ultimately hampers the entire banking system of the country. Here in the present case, the appellant/complainant had no fault on her and in spite of that she was penalized for dishonourment of the cheque in spite of the fact that sufficient fund was there in the account. So, in apparent it has become crystal clear that the State Bank of India, Pradhanagar Branch has acted negligently causing serious mental pain and agony to the complainant/appellant and also caused harm to the reputation of an account holder which is not expected from a nationalized bank like State Bank of India. So in our opinion, the Ld. Forum has failed to act in accordance with the provisions vested in the law and the complainant/appellant is entitled to have some relief under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as because Consumer Protection Act is beneficial legislation to protect the interest and safeguards of the Bonafide consumer for harassment from the authority. So in our view the order of Ld. Forum appears to be irregular and not acceptable one. The order of Ld. Forum should be set aside and the complainant/appellant should be provided with sufficient relief which she has claimed in the consumer complaint.

Thus, the appeal succeeds,

Hence it is

Ordered,

That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost.

The final order of Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri dated 28/8/2015 in connection with CC no. 6/S/2014 is hereby set aside. The complainant/appellant Tuhina Das is entitled to get rupees 20,000 as compensation for mental pain and agony and harassment from the respondent SBI, Pradhan Nagar Branch, and rupees 5000 as litigation cost and that amount shall have to be paid by the State Bank of India, Pradhan Nagar Branch in favour of the appellant Tuhina Das within a month from the date of receiving the copy of this order, failing which interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum shall be carried on upon the awarded money. The consumer complainant/appellant Tuhina Das is not entitled to get any relief from LIC Sevoke Road Branch as her life insurance policy is already continuing. The copy of this order to be handed over to the contesting parties of this appeal free of cost and one certified copy of the same to be communicated to the SBI, Pradhan Nagar Branch for asking them to take necessary action.

Let the order be communicated to Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri by E-mail.