BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
The brief factual matrix leading to the complainant’s case is that petitioner is the proprietress of M/s RAJ ICE FACTORY situated at Barpadumbasan P.O. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur, 721636 having the factory under the name & style M/s. Raj Ice Factory at Barpadumbasan P.O. & P.S. Tamluk, Dist.- Purba Medinipur-721636. The complainant is a senior citizen having PAN AJDPS4145E, Aadhaar No. 8624 0124 6920. Smt. Upala Sinha is a bonafide customer and consumer of W.B. State electricity distribution Co. Ltd having ID 222002215 and Registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. The complainant is maintaining a Current Account with the Bank namely United Bank of India, the Opposite Party No.3 and the petitioner has been paying he electricity bill by cheque from her current Account No. 0186050038669 of the United Bank of India, Tamluk Branch (Code UTBI0TAM281). The complainant had deposited CA Cheque bearing No. 443820 dtd. 04.04.2019 for Rs. 1,41,511/- along with energy Inv. No. 414008630726 dated 28.03.2019 towards the month of April 2019. On 12.06.2019 the opposite party No. 1 i.e. W.B. State electricity distribution Company Limited vides memo dtd. 12.06.2019 returned the cheque No. 443820 dated 04.04.2019 for Rs. 1,41,511/- with return Memo report No. 001931/202002/1060 dated 06.04.2019 with the subject dishonor of cheque No. 443820 for Rs. 1,41,511/- dtd. 04.04.2019. Opposite Party No. 1 also instructed the complainant to make necessary payment of Rs. 1,90,815/- by Bank draft with charge Rs. 100/-. The opposite party further has withdrawn the facility for making payment of energy bill by cheque for 12(twelve) months in terms of clause No. 3.3.9 of W.B. electricity Regulatory Commission Regulation 2004. ‘A’ Copy of letter dt. 12.06.2019, copy of return memo of SBI and copy of cheque No. 443820 are annexed and marked ‘A’. It is submitted that the complainat is paying the energy bill by cheque regularly. She had sufficient balance in her account mentioned above on the date of presentation of cheque i.e. on 04.04.2019 whimsically the said cheque was dishonoured with a Return memo Report dtd. 06.04.2019 of their Banker State Bank of India, Tamluk (Code 721002202) the Opposite Party No.2 with the reason 40-present with document. Being informed by the concerned party the complainant sent a letter dtd. 26.05.2019 to the Branch Manager United Bank of India, Tamluk Branch with copy to the Regional Manager State Bank of India, Tamluk and WBSEDCL customer care centre, Tamluk asking the reason for dishonor of cheque. ‘B’ Copy of letter dtd. 26.05.2019 i.d. annexed and marked ‘B’. In reply to the letter dtd. 26.05.2019 United Bank of India, tamluk Branch through their Advocate replied that no such transaction has taken place for the considerable amount. ‘C’ Copy of the letter dtd. 12.06.2019 is annexed and marked ‘C’. The complainant again through her advocate sent a letter to the State bank of India, Tamluk Branch asking the reason for returning cheque without presenting (Drawer Bank) for collection. ‘D’. Copy of the letter dtd. 10.06.2019 is annexed and marked ‘D’. The complainant did not get reply from State Bank of India Tamluk Branch at which the Opposite Party deposited the cheque No. 443820 dtd. 04.04.2019 for collection of energy bill of your petitioner from United bank of Inidia, Tamluk and also could not know the reason for penalizing your petitioner by the opposite party towards dishonor of cheque for no fault of the complainant. The complainant through her Advocate sent a notice to the A.E. & Station manager Tamluk Customer Care Centre W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Tamluk on 29/06/2019 asking the reason for dishonor of the cheque No. 443820 dtd. 04.04.2019 for Rs. 1,41,511/- submitted against energy bill in spite of having the balance in her a/c Rs. 5,29,727/-. ‘E’ Copy of the letter dtd. 29.06.2019 is annexed and marked ‘E’. It is submitted that on 24.07.2019 the opposite party WBSEDCL sent a evasive reply enclosing the copy of Branch return memo dtd. 06.04.2019 and their earlier letter dtd. 12.06.2019. Being unable to know the reason for dishonor of cheque complainant again sent a letter to the Branch manager State Bank of India Tamluk Branch 9on 03.08.2019. ‘G’ copy of the letter dtd. 03.08.2019 is annexed and marked ‘G’. Due to whimsical activities of all the Opposite parties, the petitioner was badly humiliated and the petitioner’s good will has been damaged also she lost the facility of payment of monthly energy bill by cheque for next 12 (twelve) months. And for this act of opposite party the petitioner aged about 73 years sustained loss mental peace and irreparable loss .The cause of action for this complaint arises on and from 12.06.2019 and on subsequent dates. Hence the complaint prays for an award, For giving direction to the opposite parties to pay a compensation for Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant for harassment, mental pain and also for damaging the goodwill of the petitioner. For giving direction to the opposite parties to pay litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner and for any other relief or reliefs.
Upon notice the op-1 contested the case by filing written version thereof . The ops-1 & 2 , despite service of notice, preferred to see the case be decided exparte against it .The sum and substance of the written version filed by op-1 are ,inter alia ,that statements made in the complaint are denied save and except which are specifically admitted. OP-1 has submitted that no cause of arose on any point of time. The prayer of the petition are also false, baseless and without any basis. The case is not at all maintainable in its present form and prayer. The case is barred by law. The case is barred by limitation. The case is barred by the provisions of electricity Acts and Rules there under. The case is barred by estoppels, waiver and acquiescence. There is no cause of action against the O.P. The facts of the case is this that one information received as returned memo report regarding unable to obtain payment cheque/draft No. 443820 amount Rs. 141511/- drawn on United Bank of India. In the return memo report it is mentioned 40 - present with document, dishonor of cheque No. 443820. The return memo report enclosed and termed as Annexure -1. Then Tamluk C.C.C. issued a letter to M/S Raj Ice Factory dated 12.06.2019 regarding payment of energy bill for the month of April, 2019. In the same time advised to the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,70,885/- but in complainant’s copy amount has been shown Rs. 1,90,515/- instead of Rs. 1,70,885/-. The letter copy enclosed herewith as annexure-II. As such ,according to op-1 the case is liable to be dismissed.
Points for determination are:
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
Heard arguments of the Learned Counsel for both parties. We gave our thoughtful consideration to the arguments from both sides. We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by op-1, evidence and other annexures.
Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case and other materials on record, it appears that the instant case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
The crux or fulcrum of the dispute between the parties rests upon two aspects the first one is dishonor of Cheque No. 443820 for amount of Rs. 1,41,511 dated 04.04.2019 issued by the complainant and the second one is the notice issued by OP-1 on 12.06.2019 demanding Rs. 1,70,885/-. Coming to the first one that is dishonor of cheque. The said Cheque was dishonoured by the concerned bank due to 40- present with documents. It is meant ,for clearance of the Cheque presence of the person who issued the cheque was asked for presenting himself/ herself in the concerned bank with documents for KYC. . Complainant did not comply with the instructions of the bank for clearance of the cheque. So it was the duty of the complainant/Customer to be alert as to whether cheque issued by him/her was honoured or not. It is her duty to see that as to whether the bill raised by Op-1 was paid within due date through her issued cheque.
Turning to Second aspect, it appears that Op-1 issued the notice dt. 12.06.2019 asking to pay Rs. 1,70,885/- by pay order or Bank draft as the earlier Cheque for amount of Rs. 1,41,511/- was dishonoured. As the Op-1 missed to write bill for the month of June 2019 to be paid due date on 10.06.2019. The complainant misunderstood the amount of Rs. 1,41,511/- for which cheque was issued was enhanced to Rs. 1,70,885/- by adding fine etc. From the documents filed by the Op-1 its Bills for the months of April 2019, May 2019 and June 2019 are already paid by the complainant. There is no due for the said period. As the cheque was dishonoured payment is not accepted by cheque for any electric bill of the complainant. It is the administrative discretion of the op-1. From our above discussion we observe that there was no cause of action against the Ops in this case. The complaint is misconceived one. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the ops. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. The case is liable to be dismissed.
Both the points are decided accordingly. Resultantly, the complaint case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC/595 of 2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite party-1 and ex-parte against OPs No-2 & 3, however without any order as to costs.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and the OP-1 free of cost.
