Consumer Case No CC/13/2020

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  Consumer Case No. CC/13/2020

  Registered on. 21/01/2020

  Decided on. 17/10/2022

        Shrimati Nanda Bhujang Walke

                            Age - 55, Occupation – Housewife

                            R/o Sharad, Po.Talegaon, Tal. Kalamb

        Dist. Yavatmal

   Versus

                    1.  Main Manager,

                        Bhartiya State Bank, Main Branch,

     Yavatmal, Tal.Dist. Yavatmal

2. Lahuchand Ramchandra Meshram   

    Age -nil   , Occupation – Farming

                    3. Shudhodhan Lahuchand Meshram  

    Age - nil  , Occupation – Farming

4.Ku. Lata Lahuchand Meshram  

    Age -   , Occupation – Housewife

    R/o Rah. Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Amravati

Before

                    Hon’ble Shri Nandkumar M. Waghmare, President

                    Hon’ble Shri Hemraj L. Thakur, Member

Appearances

Adv. G.A. Parate, For appellant

Adv. M.D. Galgalikar, For Respondent

ORDER

(Delivered on 17/10/2022)

  Hon’ble President Shri Nandkumar M. Waghmare

1. This is a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The Complainant Nanda and the opponent no 3, & 4 are close relatives. The  Complainant and opponent no 2 to 4 were having five H. 41 R land in Survey no 58 at Wai Ijara, Ta. Ner, Tal. Yavatmal. They have sold the entire 7.5 H. Land to Irphan Khan and Imran Khan for valuable consideration of Rs. 5,25,000/- on 7/2/2021. The said amount was to be disbursed  to the Complainant and opponent no 2 to 4. At that time the opponent, no 2 had assured to pay Rs.2,10,000/-to the Complainant and in lieu issued one check no 417390 of State Bank of India, Amravati.

3.  Complainant further alleged that the Complainant has presented that check Rs.2,10,000/- to opponent no 1- Bank but it was dishonoured. The Complainant asked to the opponent no 1 to return for the said check. But the said check had been returned to the opponent no 2 by the Bank. In fact complainant was entiled to get that check and it was wrongly posted to the opponent no 2. This was complete mistake and deficiency in service of the opponent no 1. Matter of fact, complainant could not get that check, hence she was unable to sue or prosecute to opponent no 2. She had faced mental cruelty and agony. The Complainant urged to grant Rs. 2,10,000/- and interest thereon.  

4.   The opponent Bank has appeared before the Commission and resisted the complaint by filing its say. It is the defence of Bank that the Complainant the opponents 2 to 4 are close relatives. It is admitted that the Complainant has presented said check in the Bank  which was issued by the opponent no 4 Lata Laluchand, but it was dishonoured and for want of sufficient balance. It was inadverntly returned to the opponent no 4 but there was no bad intention. The Complainant was entitiled to get that check from the opponent no 2 to 4 but the Complainant did nothing. There was no deficiency in service by the Bank, hence the complaint needs to be dismissed.

5.  The opponent no 2 to 4 are absent before the Commission, hence matter is proceed exparty against them

6. The complainants have filed Xerox copie of letter written to Police Superintend, receipt of it, Letter written by Shrmati Walke to Police Station Ner,Correspondence of Shrimati Wale to Bhartiya State Bank,and their letter to her. Tracking report, Notices and receipts.

7. Considering the arguments placed on the record as well as on perusal of the documents alongwith these pros and cons following points arise for our determination. We have recorded findings thereon with the reasons stated hereinafter.

Reasons

As to Issue no 1 to 3

8.      On perusal of the oral and documantarly evidence available on record, it appears that one ancestral land of the complainant and opponent no 2 to 4 was sold to Khan Brothers and sell proceed  of Rs. 5,25,000/- was earned. In this context the complainant’s share was Rs. 2,10,000/- of that sell proceed. It is also admitted fact that the opponent no 2 has issued one check of Rs. 2,10,000/- to the complainant and she had submitted that check to the opponent no 1-Bank. This check was dishounoured. As per pleedings of the opponent no 1, it reveals that this check was returned to the opponent no 4-Lata Meshram.    

10.  At the outset and without touching to the merits of the case, we find that the opponent Bank was bound to return that check to the complainant itself but it was not done. However that check was returned to the opponent no 4-Lata. At no point of time, the opponent Bank can not be escaped from their responsibility. Even though in the present case the complainant and the opponent no 2 to 4 are closely relatives. It means the drawer and drawee are close relatives with each others but it does not mean that the Bank can make such mistakes. We are of the firm view that the opponent no 1-Bank  has committed mistake and there by caused loss to the complainant only. The complainant is entitled for the compensation.

11.   Learned advocate Parate appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently submitted that the complainant’s check was dishonoured and she could have prosecute under section 138 of Negotible Instrument Act against the opponent no 4 and even she could have file the suit but as the said check was not available to complainant, hence she was thrown to keeps silence. The complainant sustained net loss of Rs.2,10,000/-. Hence that amount is warranted with interest theron.

12.    Learned Advocate Galgalikar appearing on behalf of the Bank has strongly submitted that there was the mistake on the part of Bank but there was no ill intention. The said check was  inadvarantly dispatched in favour of the opponent no 4.  The compensation  may be granted but entire check amount  cannot be granted. Moreover the complainant has not taken any effort to collect that check from her relative. Hence this complaint  is filed only to extract money. Learned advocate has placed his reliance on one citation of National Disputess Redressal Commission, B.Sitharam Reddy Vs. Manager, Dena Bank & 2 Ors. Dated 13 March 2018

it is held therein that,

“The Bank may be liable damages for not returning the check as it seems deficiency in service but they can not be under liability to pay the check amount. The National Commission has reiterated he judgement Honourable Apex court, Citi Bank Vs. Geekay Agropack(P) Limited in (SCC) 2008 (15) 102”.

13.    Considering the canvass of both the Advocates, the evidence alongwith the dictum of Hon’ble National Commission, we find that though the Bank has committed mistake by not returning that check to the complainant. But it is to be noted that the complainant and opponent 2 to 4 are closely relative to each others. There is absolutely no whisper in the evidence to show that the complainant has made no effort to get that check from the opponent no 4. The complainant has not issued notice through advocate to prosecute the opponent no 4 which has sympathies the case of opponent-Bank.

14.    In this premises, we find that in whatever circumstance the opponent-Bank has committed the mistake. Hence some compensation is required to be granted.

15.    Consequently, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 25,000/-,  it will be sufficient the aim of the complaint.  In view of all this facts we answer all the points accordingly and proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.

2. The opponent no 1 do pay Rs.25,000/- and interest theron   @7% per annum from the filing of the complaint, i.e. 21/01/2020 to till  the  realisation of said amount.

3. The opponent do pay Rs.5,000/-(Rs.Five thousand only)   

    towards pain and sufferings.

4. The opponent do pay Rs.3,000/-(Rs.Three thousand only)     

    towards the costs of the complaint.

4. No order against opponent no 2 to 4 .

5. Copies be provided free of costs to the parties.

Dt. 17 Ocotber 2022

CGM