The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.P, where O.P is the Branch Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, Bidu Bazar, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant received one UCO Bank cheque No.322721, dtd.13.11.2013 of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only from Chief Minister relief fund for her treatment and presented the same with the O.P-Bank for collection and credit to her account. On an enquiry made by the Complainant, the O.P informed that the said cheque has been sent for collection by post and not yet received back. But, the O.P did not send for collection, for which the Complainant could not draw the said amount from O.P-Bank. Thus, the Complainant sent an Advocate notice, but the O.P did not comply with. The O.P neither paid the said amount nor returned the said cheque to the Complainant amounting to deficiency-in-service by the O.P as well as causing mental agony to the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 25.04.2014 and 26.04.2014. The Complainant has prayed for payment of cheque amount with interest along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost. 

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P-Bank through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P has further submitted that the O.P-Bank only discharges the duty of a collecting Banker and cannot be held liable for mistake of other i.e. UCO Bank in the instant case. The O.P-Bank on receipt of impugned cheque diligently sent for collection to UCO Bank, Bahanaga branch (payee bank) on 18.11.2013. But, the UCO Bank slept over the matter and sent back the impugned cheque on 23.05.2014 on the ground of revalidation. In addition, the Postal authorities through whom the O.P-Bank forwarded the impugned cheque to UCO bank for collection maintained stoic silence over the time and again reminder of O.P-Bank who enquired about  the delivery of the registered letter to UCO Bank through which the impugned cheque was sent for collection vide their letter dtd.13.03.2014, 02.04.2014 and 18.04.2014. In view of aforementioned facts, the above mentioned Parties ought to have been impleaded as necessary Parties, but the Complainant has not done so for the reason best known to her. Moreover, the Complainant who has a S.B Account with the O.P-Bank/ branch has deposited the impugned cheque with the O.P-Bank for collection on 15.11.2013 and in pursuance to such deposit as the impugned cheque was on UCO Bank, Bahanaga branch, the O.P-Bank quite diligently sent the same for collection on 18.11.2013 by Regd. Post. However, when the collection proceeds did not come in time, the O.P-Bank without wasting time, has enquired from the said UCO Bank about the fate of the instrument so sent for collection. To this, the O.P-Bank was in receipt of the information that they (UCO Bank) are not in receipt of the said instrument. On receipt of the aforementioned information from the UCO Bank as the instrument was sent by recorded delivery, the O.P-Bank enquired from the concerned Post Office as to whether the instrument in question has been delivered at the destination or not, and if yes, when. The copies of the letters made as follow up with the concerned Post office are filed herewith. After the persistent follow as afore stated made by the O.P-Bank, the UCO Bank on 05.05.2014 has returned the impugned cheque on the ground of ‘Revalidation’, which was received at the end of the O.P-Bank on 23.05.2014 and thereafter, the O.P-Bank by returning the impugned cheque has intimated the Complainant on dtd.10.06.2014 about such return. The copies of the said return memo and the letter dtd.10.06.2014 of O.P-Bank has also been filed herewith. From this, one thing is indubitably established that the UCO Bank was in receipt of the impugned cheque, but has slept over the matter for the reason best known to him. Hence, the O.P prays to dismiss the case with cost.      

                    4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) Whether this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary Parties ?

(iv) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P ?

(v) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. The Advocate for the Complainant though took part in hearing of this case on the date fixed, but neither the O.P nor his Advocate was present and did not take part in hearing. So, pleading of the O.P remains as his case. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after deposit of the required cheque sent for collection to the relevant bank at Bahanaga through Post, the O.P-Bank did not receive the same in time and lastly after taking steps, the said cheque was returned to O.P-Bank with a remark "revalidation of cheque" on dtd.05.05.2014 as disclosed vide Annexure-A. But, the required cheque is not available in the case record as both the Parties are silent to it as to what happened to say the original cheque. The O.P has taken the plea that though the Complainant has knowledge of the Postal authority and the relevant UCO Bank of Bahanaga branch are involved in this case for collection of cheque of necessary Parties as the Complainant has not made as O.P for proper decision of the case. But, it is not supported by any argument at the time of hearing due to absence of the O.P and his Advocate. Furthermore, the O.P has also taken the plea about suppression of fact by the Complainant in this respect, which is also fatal to this case. On the other hand, it has been also argued that when the Complainant has deposited the cheque at O.P-Bank amounting to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only, it is the duty of the O.P-Bank for collection of the same cheque and any deviation to it by the O.P-Bank, the O.P-Bank is only responsible for it and the Complainant should have taken necessary legal action against the O.P-Bank.

                    6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record as discussed earlier, we are in the opinion that the O.P-Bank has not performed his duty properly and sincerely, for which he is liable for deficiency of service and also is liable for payment of such amount with interest and compensation for mental agony followed by litigation cost. In our opinion, the O.P-Bank be directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only, which should be paid within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount from the date of order till realization. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.P-Bank with cost. The O.P-Bank is directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only, which should be paid within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount including the cheque amount along with compensation and litigation cost from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.P-Bank as per Law, in case of failure by the O.P-Bank to comply the Order. 

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 28th day of February, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.