Hon'ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant Sumit Goswami opened a savings bank A/C with the OP Central Bank of India vide A/C No.4000088894 and on the basis of the request of the Complainant OP issued cheque facility. Due to some business transaction the Complainant sent two A/C payee advanced cheques bearing No.171209 dated 03.0121 for Rs.20,000/- and No.171210 dated 06.01.21 for Rs.30,000/- both in the name of Namita Barman. Subsequently due to negligence of the OP during clearance of cheque No.171209 on 31.12.20 deducted Rs.20,000/- in lieu of 03.01.21 and another cheque No.171210 dishonoured on 31.12.20 and deducted Rs.209/- illegally in the account of the Complainant. The said Namita Barman threatened the Complainant to take legal steps due to gross negligence against the OP. The Complainant requested the OP to rectify the said mistake but to no effect for which the Complainant sent written complaint on 04.01.21 through registered post but the O.P. did not reply. The said misdeed of OP is deficiency in service. The cause of action arose on 31.12.20 and on 04.01.21 which is still continuing.
The OP contested the case by filing written version denying all the claims and allegations. The positive case of the OP in brief is that the date which was given in the cheque indicates the date of issue of the cheque. If he had issued the cheque as per his claim it is obvious that the date which has been put in the cheque is wrongly entered. So the said latches took place on the part of the Complainant. So he cannot stand on his own latches. All the cheques presented in the bank for encashment are checked and verified by the cheque clearing software of the presenting bank. In case of any post dated cheque, system would automatically alert to stop the entry. Total procedure is done through an online portal. During the process of clearance of cheque only the payee bank can verify and identify any discrimination with any cheque. If there is any fault in the cheque clearance process, it would be that bank where the payee/ drawee of the cheque of first instance present the cheque and there is no negligence of the Op at all. Moreover in the total process of cheque clearance function of the OP is only to pay the cheque amount to the payee’s bank. The OP therefore claimed that the case is therefore liable to be dismissed.
The respective case of the parties demand for ascertainment the following points:-
Points for ascertainment
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the CP Act?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any other relief?
Decisions with reasons
Point No.1.
It is the admitted position that the Complainant issued two post dated cheque for Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- on 03.01.21 and 06.01.21 bearing No.171209 and 171210 respectively.
The OP raised question as to the legality and the propriety of the said transaction. The said question would be decided in the next point through analysis of evidence but the fact remains that the nature of the dispute is covered within the arena of CP Act.
Accordingly, the Complainant is held as a consumer under the CP Act.
Point No.1 is thus decided in favour of the Complainant and goes against the OP.
Point Nos. 2 & 3.
Both the points are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion. The Complainant alleged that the OP illegally and unfairly with gross negligence sent the post dated cheque No.171209 dated 03.01.21 for Rs.20,000/- in advance on 31.12.20.
If we analyse the evidence, it would be found that the OP bank credited the said amount of Rs.20,000/- in to the account of the Complainant at his savings bank A/C No.4000088894 for Rs.20,000/-.
The said original pass book discloses that the said amount of Rs.20,000/- was credited on 08.02.21.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that the OP bank credited the said amount to rectify their latches.
The OP could not show sufficient reason or give any explanation as to why the said money was credited.
Ld. Defence counsel argued that as per the banking rules the total procedures is going through an online portal and during the process of clearance only the payee bank can verify and identify any discrimination regarding any cheque. For any fault in the cheque clearance process.
If the said defence plea is taken into consideration then it was the payee bank which ought to have taken ultimate steps regarding debit or credit of the said money of Rs.20,000/-. But in the instant case it is the OP bank which has credited the said money of Rs.20,000/- to the account of the Complainant. Therefore having assessed the evidence on record and the defence plea it can safely be deduced that the OP has acted in a manner which amounts to deficiency in service.
As regards the second cheque No.171210 dated 06.01.21 for Rs.30,000/- it is alleged that the said cheque was dishonoured for which the drawee of the said cheque Namita Barman threatened the Complainant to take legal steps.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that the Complainant had to be given an opportunity to make ready of his account with sufficient fund, so that the cheque is not dishonoured.
The argument has reasonable force in as much as the cheque was presented.
The OP has not cited any reason as to why the said cheque was dishonoured.
The OP took the plea that the verification and the checking of cheque clearance is done by cheque truncation system (CTS) under which the payee bank disbursed the cheque and claim the cheque amount to the drawer bank i.e. Central Bank of India.
The Defence side could not explain as to why the said cheque was dishonoured and a sum of Rs.209/- was deducted from the account of the Complainant.
The two money receipts issued by Namita Barman show that Rs.30,000/- was received by the said Namita Barman against the cheque No.171209 dated 03.12.21 and cash Rs.10,000/- dated 22.02.21 and Rs.30,000/- against cheque No.171210.
Thus the Complainant seems to have been harassed due to the misdeeds on the part of the OP. In the light of the aforesaid discussion reasonable inference is drawn that the OP did not act fairly and properly.
Ld. Defence counsel also argued that Namita Barman was not made a party to this case just to suppress the material fact and SBI is also a necessary party but they are not made party.
The argument has no relevance in as much as the OP did not take the said plea during the pendency of the present case and as such the present case cannot be said to have been defective for any defect of parties.
The discussion made herein above vis-a-vis the observation made therein the Commission comes to the finding that the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Accordingly Pint Nos. 2 & 3 are decided in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently, the case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No.4/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award of Rs.209/- towards dishonour of cheque and Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.30,209/- (Rupees thirty thousand two hundred and nine) only to the Complainant within 30 days from passing the Final Order failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing the order till the date of realisation thereof.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
