Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

 The instant case filed under section 35(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 emanates from the grievances of the complainant arising out of the treatment meted out by HDFC Bank, Chandannagar Branch in the matter of the encashment of an account payee cheque of the said bank issued by the complainant to a person having account in the same bank. However for the purpose of ventilating the grievance, the complainant has involved Nodal Officer, HDFC Bank, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, HDFC Bank, the person to whom the cheque was issued and the Income Tax Commissioner also as opposite parties. The first three opposite parties, it is apparent, belong to the same organization that is HDFC Bank.

Filtering out the unnecessary and somewhat irrelevant details in the complaint, the complainant’s case may be summarized as follows.

To depict the case epigrammatically, the complainant, an account holder of the chandannagar Branch of HDFC Bank issued an account payee cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- to one Sri Swapan Kumar Ghosh (hereinafter referred to as OP 4) who is also an account holder of the same Bank.

However, on presentation of the cheque by the OP 4, the bank, instead of transferring the amount covered by the said cheque to the account of OP 4, disbursed the amount to OP 4 across the Teller counter.

At this, the complainant is of the view that there was violation of the respective provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act, Consumer Protection Act and Section 269ST of Income Tax Act, 1961. Charges of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice are also leveled against the first three opposite parties who belong to the same organization i.e. HDFC Bank.

The complainant filed the complaint petition seeking direction upon the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to pay Rs.4,00,000/- only as compensation for ‘mental agony, pain, anxiety and unnecessary harassment’, to pay interest @18% on the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with effect from 13.09.2021 till disposal of this complaint case and to pay Rs.30,000/- against litigation cost. Copies of corresponding bank statements and communications made through e-mail between the bank and the complainant are filed.

The opposite parties no.1 to 3 belonging to the same organization contested the case by filing elaborate rebuttals in their written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument denying therein the allegations leveled against them.

  The complainant, is apparently a consumer in terms of section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and OP 1 and OP 4  are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-. Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

In the instant case, so far as the irregularity is concerned, the primary onus lies on OP 1 i.e. Chandannagar branch of HDFC Bank.

Now OP 1 in their written version, affidavit in chief, and brief notes of argument points out that both the payer and the payee being customers of the same branch of the bank, the error occurred was due to inadvertence and the same does not amount to any unfair trade practice.

It is further pointed out that they were courteous enough in seeking apology from the complainant through mail for the entire incident as soon as the development was brought to their notice. The complainant stresses on the issue that under the special circumstances where both the drawer and the drawee are the customers of the same branch of the bank, agreeing to hand over the cash to the recipient drawee customer, based on his undertaking in writing does not amount to contravention of any statutory provision.

Materials on records are perused.

The issue which deserves mention here, before taking any decision in the instant complaint case, that in course of argument, Ld. Counsel for the complainant confessed candidly that this ‘irregular’ handling of an account payee cheque by the bank did not result in any financial damage for the complainant.

Now, so far as the e-mail communications are concerned, the complainant in his mail dtd. 14.09.21(i.e. the very next day of encashment of the cheque), sent to the bank, stated inter alia that for a certain period prior to this incident he had a ‘horrible and frustrating’ experience involving ‘many incidents and problems’ in the Chandannagar branch of the bank.

The complainant raises this particular issue in the brief notes of argument placed before this Commission also. However the Commission is not supposed to intervene into the purported incidents and problems which caused horrible and frustrated experience for the complainant. This issue here is a totally different one.

The Nodal Officer East, HDFC Bank on the other hand, on receipt of the mail, apologized categorically for the inconvenience in their response mail dtd.15.09.21. They admitted to have taken a serious note of the entire issue.

Again on 16.09.21, the Branch Manager of the Bank in his mail sent to the complainant expressed his sincere apology for over the counter payment of the cheque. He explained in the mail that the error was an inadvertent one and was a case of oversight. He claims to have cautioned the staff concerned and advised suitable measures to prevent further recurrence of such incident in future.

As regards violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the appropriate wing of the Income Tax Department is supposed to take action in the matter.

In connection with the complainant’s ‘horrible and frustrating experience’ with the bank during last few years, it can be said that the Commission at this juncture cannot be expected to intervene into the issues related to the settlement of the complainant’s old scores with the bank. 

Now, this Commission on consideration of all the aspects of the case is of the view that there was definitely a sort of irregularity in the matter in which the account payee cheque was handled by the bank. Even without going into the intricacies of the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act the inference may be drawn that the concerned person at the Teller counter either was inattentive and negligent or was hyper-active. But the act appears to be an omission, not commission. The Bank also expressed regret over the incident and was thoroughly apologetic. The language of the mails sent by the Bank reflects that they took the matter with gross seriousness and committed to take steps for prevention of further recurrence of such irregular disbursement.

It does not transpire that there was some ulterior motive or mala fide intention either of the concerned employee of the bank as an individual or of the bank as a whole, behind the across the counter disbursement of the amount to the drawee of the cheque. It cannot be concluded that the bank in collusion of the OP 4 indulged in such irregular disbursement.

 No human being is infallible and this incident appears to be a stray one. From this, it cannot be concluded that there was deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank as a whole. Moreover the complainant did not have to suffer any financial loss from the incident. Besides, there cannot be any substantial mental agony as a fallout of the aforementioned mishandling of the account payee cheque, which deserves to be compensated by monetary consideration.

Hence, it is

                                        ORDERED

that the complaint case no.124/2021 cannot be allowed on contest and thus it stands dismissed. However there is no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.