This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he is an Advocate and practicing in High Court in Calcutta and has a bank account with OP Bank since 1987-88 being account no.11143724962.  Complainant on 26-09-2011 issued a cheque being No.328435 for a sum of Rs.3,997/- against said Bank A/c in favour of LIC I which was dishonoured by the SBI High Court Branch, Calcutta on 08-10-2011 on the ground of insufficient fund and for that reason OP deducted Rs.100/- from the account of the complainant account holder by the OP Bank but complainant asserts that on 08-10-2011 he had sufficient fund to honour the said cheque for a sum of Rs.3,997/- issued in the favour of the LICI.

          LICI by a letter dated 01-11-2011 communicated the complainant that the cheque issued by the complainant has been returned for the reason ‘insufficient fund’ and returned the dishonoured cheque without Bank return memo to the complainant and claimed fresh remittance of Rs.4,179/- i.s. Rs.3997/- + Rs.182/- for bank charges.  Complainant by its letters dated 31-12-2011, 08-02-2012 and 29-02-2012 requested the Senior Branch Manager, LICI, Chandernagore to send him the Bank Return Memo, since the Bank Authority in spite of showing the updated pass book was continuously pressing hard to the complainant to show the bank return memo.  Complainant had to pursue the office of the LICI, Chandernagore and the Bank Authority to know the reason for dishonour of the cheque and each time he has been dealt with severe insulting behaviour from both the authority, that is, Branch Manager, LICI Chinsurah Branch and Assistant Manager, State Bank of India and ultimately, Branch Manager, LICI forwarded the return memo issued by the concerned Bank.

          Thereafter, complainant made a representation through his Ld. Advocate to the OP Bank and Banking Ombudsman on 09-04-2012 stating thereunder that the complainant had sufficient fund in his account and claimed thereby Rs.1,90,000/- against deficiencies in service by the respondent Bank causing thereby serious harassment, mental agony and undermining is reputation in the society.

          On 05-05-2012 Banking Ombudsman advised the complainant to address the complainant directly to the Bank and in the event no reply is received from the Bank within 30 days and/or if the complainant is not satisfied with the reply of the Bank, the complainant may file complaint with office of the Banking Ombudsman describing thereby deficiency in service on the Bank’s part with copies of supporting documents.

          Complainant on 17-09-2012 made a complaint in prescribed format before the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India claiming thereby Rs.1,90,000/- towards compensation and same was registered as 1194/2012 and subsequently SBI, High Court Branch by its letter No.KHC/GEN/443 dated 04-10-2012 under the signature of the Assistant General Manager communicated to the complainant illogical justification for dishonouring the cheque due to insufficient fund, which is not sustainable in facts and as a matter of record and the justification as made by the OP is completely mischievous and irrational, as there was sufficient fund on 08-10-2011 which was sufficient to honour the cheque.

          On 09-04-2012 complainant made a demand to the Assistant Chief General manager of the OP Bank for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- against wrongful dishonour which amounts to deficiency in service, causing mental agony, excessive harassment and undermining the reputation of the complainant with a copy forwarded to the Banking Ombudsman.  Thereafter, Banking Ombudsman by its letter bearing no.KOL/OBO/2259/03-08-031/2012-13 Dated 10-01-2013 reported that “refunded the amount claimed by you vide your complaint” and accordingly resolved the complaint as per satisfaction of the complainant.

          On receipt of the said letter dated 10-01-2013 complainant enquired from the OP Bank by getting his passbook updated observed that the OP Bank in compliance to the order of the Banking Ombudsman deposited on 08-01-2013 i.e. after 14 months of harassment of the complainant, a sum of Rs.289/- in the account of the complainant, which is an illusory amount in respect of the claim made by the complainant. 

          Fact remains the cheque was dishonoured on 08-10-2011 which was communicated to the complainant by the LICI authority on 01-11-2011 and after series of correspondences the copy of the bank return memo was forwarded to the complainant on 08-=12-2012 and the complainant had to remit Rs.182/- towards Bank charges and Rs.133/- towards late fee charges, that is, Rs.315/- to the LICI authority apart from penal charges and other charges Rs.100/- from the OPs and Rs.415/- was paid by the complainant for laches of the bank.

          Being aggrieved with the order of Banking Ombudsman and also the attitude of the OP Bank and their negligent and deficient manner of service this complaint has been filed by the complainant for proper relief and for refunding Rs.415/- and also compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-

          On the other hand, OP Bank by submitting written statement has submitted that no doubt the complainant is an account holder in respect of the account No.11143724962 and also admitted that the complainant issued a cheque being No.328435 dated 26-09-2011 of Rs.3,997/- and the said cheque was dishonoured on 08-10-2011 due to insufficient fund.  Against this complainant made a compliant before SBI and after enquiry they came to know that on 08-10-2011 the hold value of said account was ‘zero’ and unclear amount was Rs.29,080/-, the current balance was 30036-300  and hence, available balance was Rs.956.300/- and hence, the cheque no.328435 dated 26-09-2011 of Rs.3,997/-.  Accordingly, the matter was informed to the complainant but denied all the other allegations as made in the compliant and submitted that complaint filed by the complainant is for illegal gain on the strength of fake, afterthought allegations without any authenticated documents and the said complaint be dismissed with cost as same is not maintainable.  

Decision with Reasons

On proper hearing of the complaint and Ld. Lawyer of both the parties and overall assessment of the materials on record it is found that no doubt complainant has one bank SB Account No.11143724962 and admitted fact is that complainant issued one cheque being no.328425 dated 26-09-2011 for Rs.3,997/- to LICI though that was dishonoured on 08-10-2011 and it was dishonoured due to inisufficient fund.

          Now, the question is whether there was any fund in the said account or not.  In this regard complainant has filed the bank account i.e. pass book issued by the OP and time to time updated by the complainant and from the said pass book it is found that on 08-10-2011 the balance amount was Rs.30,136/- and after that it has shown that on 08-10-2011 Cheque No.328425 was dishonoured for which Rs.100/- was deducted and after that the total balance in the said account was Rs.30,036/- so, apparently from the passbook it is clear that at the time of dishonouring the cheque the total amount was Rs.32,536-30paise and on that date i.e. on 08-10-201 Rs.2400/- was withdrawn by ATM from SBI, Chinsurah.  Thereafter, balance was Rs.30,136-30paise and thereafter, how the cheque was dishonoured when the amount of the cheque was only for Rs.3,997/- when passbook was issued by the OP and that passbook was processed through printer and from internet banking system then it is clear that on the date of dishonouring the cheque total amount was Rs.30,136/- because on that date initial total balance account on the opening hours on 08-10-2011 was Rs.32,536-30paise.  Thereafter, complainant by using ATM card withdrew Rs.2,400/- that was deducted thereafter, balance was found Rs.30,136-30 paise so the OPs plea and defence is that balance was ‘zero’ is completely false and fabricated.  Another factor is that on 08-01-2013 OP Bank deposited Rs.289/- showing that deposit as per Ombudsman order then it is clear OP bank paid that Rs.289/- as compensation as per Ombudsman order but there was no such Ombudsman order and OP has failed to produce any such order then it is clear that OP Bank was very much satisfied after enquiry that there was fault for dishonouring the cheque and fact remains OP Bank deducted Rs.100 for dishonouring of cheque and also complainant reported that he has paid Rs.415/- for dishonouring the cheque and OP deposited Rs.289/- admitting their fault.  So, in the above situation there is no other alternative but to hold that dishonour of cheque by the OP Bank is completely without any basis and no doubt it was caused due to their laches and also for the negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the OP Bank and their employees and the particular act of the OP Bank in crediting Rs.289/- noted as per Ombudsman order simply proves that only to save their scheme they deposited Rs.289/- as compensation in the account of the complainant in which noted Ombudsman Order but no such Ombudsman order was passed or produced by the OP Bank to prove that said amount was deposited to the OP Bank as per order of the Ombudsman but this act simply proves that OPs Bank admitted the guilt and latches and deficiency and negligency.  Considering the above facts it is proved that there was laches on the part of the OP Bank from very beginning and statement of account as issued by the Bank Annexure K also supports that fact and same time it is also proved from page 22 of the complaint the statement of account of savings bank pass book of the complainant as issued by the OP that on 08-10-2011 at early bank hours total balance in the credit was Rs.32,536-30 paise, thereafter, on 08-10-2011 after sometime complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.2,400/- through ATM and same was shown as withdrawn amount and after that the balance in the account was Rs.30,136-30 paise.  Thereafter, the cheque was shown as dishonoured.  If any idiot goes through this statement of account of the passbook as issued by the OP Bank he shall be satisfied that how Rs.2,400/- was withdrawn by the complainant by the complainant through the ATM then on the same date when OP has taken such defence that on that date the credit balance of the complainant was ‘zero’ , if it was zero how the ATM entertained the complainant to withdraw that amount of Rs.2,400/- and this very fact simply proves that defence as taken by the OP is completely false and fabricated and such a defence should not be taken by the OP but their major business to tell a lie before the court, before Forum, Quasi Judicial Authority or Court or anywhere and that practice has been followed by the Bank because the administration taught the bank staff to tell lie before any Court, Forum or Quasi Judicial Authority otherwise Bank shall be penalized and this is the teaching of the administration and that teaching has been followed in the present case by the Bank Authority but truth is otherwise and it has already been explained.  So, considering the materials it is found that defence as taken by the OP is a false defence.  Truth is that OPs have filed dishonest materials before this Forum by procuring it by adopting some other procedure and practically OP has ultimately returned a sum of Rs.289/- telling that it was credited in the account of the complainant subsequently, on 08-01-2013.  So, considering such sort of dishonest practice as adopted by the OP in defying the allegation of the complainant and also ultimate document of their crediting Rs.289/- on 08-01-2013 has convinced this Forum to belief that this OP Bank and their administration have lost their all moral and social responsibility and their moral courage to tell a truth before the Judicial Authority or Quasi Judicial Authority and they have also earned a reputation before this Forum for their own conduct that they are liar in their daily life and they used to tell a lie for all purposes which is proved in this case.  Fact remains complainant has been mentally harassed, complainant as an Advocate has been harassed by the OP though no doubt he had a good fund on the very date and he withdrew Rs.2,400/- that was encashed by ATM but even then there was no fund it is going to be proved by bank authority with a motive only to harass the complainant and in this regard we are convinced that they never tell a lie before the Quasi Judicial authority but they have their reputation that they are dishonest always before a Quasi Judicial Authority because they are always tell a lie before any judicial or Quasi Judicial Authority in such a manner and that practice has been followed invariably that is taught by Bank administration because they are the god of bank employees but they have failed to learn the teaching of Buddha and after considering the entire material it is found that the bank employees are not studying moral philosophy in rendering the service to the customers.  Truth is that customers are being harassed and hackled daily by the bank employees and this is the common feature in most of the banks.

          In this respect it is to be mentioned that prior to coming of net operation on internet system the bank had been run by staff manually and so many manual error has been detected and it has corrected manually and that was human failure, human failure can easily be excused but now by taking the continuous procedure of link failure OP has tried to prove that in the shadow it was zero but it is completely a false defence.  Then it is clear at the relevant time their entire shadow was zero for which in the present case ultimately Op admitted their guilt by depositing Rs.289/- and considering the written version of the OP it is clear that their moral value is very zero which has been ventilated in their written version and they have tried to make this Ld. Lawyer as a fool but anyhow truth has been established and defence of the OP is proved as fool’s defence so it is also proved that negligent and deficient manner of service and deceitful manner of service were adopted by the OP for making the complainant’s complaint as a fool’s complaint but their all effort for making the complainant fool has been proved that it is OP’s fool’s version and further it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that OP bank adopted unfair trade practice for which manipulation has been made in that internet system and procured a paper but truth is that that paper has not saved the OPs.  OPs are proved a liar before this Forum and also their activities in daily work is completely negligent and deficient in manner for their deficient and negligent manner of service and for adopting unfair trade practice OPs shall have to pay Rs.415/- but in the meantime OP bank has deposited Rs.289/- on 08-01-2013 so as per complainant’s claim he has prayed for Rs.415/- but in the meantime OP has already paid Rs.289/- on 08-01-2013 for which complainant is entitled to get back Rs.126/- out of claim of Rs.415/- and for harassing and causing mental pain and agony and for filing a false defence before this forum OP shall have to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation and further for compelling this practicing Advocate to come before this Forum to file a case for simple cause OP shall have to pay Rs.10,000/- litigation cost because complainant himself has lost his valuable time in his practice.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) against the OPs.

          OPs are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.126/-(Rupees one hundred twenty six only) out of Rs.415/- as claimed because OP already paid Rs.289/-. 

          Further OPs jointly and severally shall have to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the complainant for harassing, causing mental pain and agony and for adopting unfair trade practice and for filing a false, fabricated defence to this Forum even after existence by their bank document processed and issued by the OP to the complainant it is vital document for determination of the falsity of the claim of the OP.

          OPs are directed pay within 15 days from the date of this order and comply the order without any fall within 15 days railing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order penal interest @Rs.100 shall be assessed daily against the OP till full satisfaction of the decree and even penal proceeding u/s.27 of the C.P. Act shall be started with them for which further penalty and interest shall be charged and penal interest shall be paid before this Forum.