In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/27/2022.
Date of filing: 22/02/2022. Date of Final Order: 27/11/2024.
Sri Pulak Kumar Goswami,
Son of late Banshidhar Goswami
Of Harit, P.O. Harit, P.S. Dadpur, Dist. Hooghly. …….Complainant
vs
- The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Harit Branch.
P.O. Harit, P.S. Dadpur, Dist. Hooghly.
3. The Branch Manager,
Axis Bank, Chinsurah Branch.
Office at Khadinamore, P.O. Chinsurah, PS. – Chinsurah
Dist. Hooghly, Pin Code No. 712 102. ….opposite parties
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
Member, Babita Chaudhuri.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that father of complainant died in the year 2018 leaving his wife Smt. Purnima Goswami and the present complainant.
That widow pension of Rs. 16,702/- per month is being credited to Saving bank Account No. 11722548081 in State Bank of India, Harit Branch, Dist. Hooghly. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Purnima Goswami is an old lady aged about 70 years and she is suffering from various disease specially she is a patent of Ischemic CVA and Hypertension. She needs regular medicine for her treatment.
That mother of the complaint drawn amount from her account lastly on April, 21. Presently there is balance of Rs. 2,37,834/- in her said account maintain in State Bank of India, Harit Branch, (who is called the Opposite party no.1). The mother issued one cheque in favour of the complainant being cheque no. 200706 dated 9. 12. 21 of Rs. 2,00,000/- for her treatment. The complainant on receipt of said cheque immediately deposited the same in his Saving Bank Account being No 920010063275177 in Axis Bank, Chinsurah Branch on 10. 12. 21. But very surprisingly the complainant found that the said cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- was returned by the Opposite party no. 3. The opposite party no. 1&. 3 did not assign any reason as to why the said cheque was returned to the drawer although there was sufficient balance in the account of his mother at the relevant time.
That subsequently the mother of the complainant issued another cheque being no. 200709 dated 13. 12. 21 of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant for her treatment. The complainant went to deposit in his personal Saving Bank A/c being no. 20154000288 State Bank of India, Harit Branch. But the bank official refused to deposit the same and the concerned clerk of the Bank made one endorsement in the deposit slip Record Not Found.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss suffered by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
Defense Case:- The opposite party No. 1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that from the office record of the O.P. no-1 it is found that complaint submitted a cheque of State Bank of India, Harit Branch, Harit, Hooghly, being no-200706 dated- 09/12/2021 amounting of Rs,2,00,000/- to liquidate the same but the cheque leaf being no-200706 dated-09/12/2021 was out dated of the banking system and for that reason it was failed to en cash. It is pertinent to mention that soon after the incident it was informed to the complaint over his mobile phone that as the cheque leaf was out dated, it was not possible to en cash and symonteniously it was advised to the complaint to get upto date cheque book to get money through cheque and it was also advised to the complaint to bring her mother at Bank to withdraw the money and it was also assured on the part of the Bank that as the mother of the complaint was senior Citizen and ailing, Bank would take minimum time to disburse the money.
That as per advice of the Bank, complaint personally appeared into the Bank on-18/12/2021 and the said technical problem was again explained to the complaint and complaint also realized the problem and he applied for new cheque book and after getting the new cheque book complaint issued the cheque and that was liquidated 07-03-2022 and money was transferred to account no-20154000288 of the complaint.
That there was no fault on the part of the O.P. no-1 in the entire incident. All the misunderstanding which ever were done due to the complaint and if the complaint would place any upto date cheque leaf to get money, there might not be problem.
That complaint has cunningly filed this complaint to make profit by getting money, as compensation but fact remaining complaint himself compounded the problem and he cannot be compensated for this own wrong. So, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed within cost.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite party no. 1 filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite party no. 1 filed written notes of argument. As per the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocates of the complainant and the opposite party no. 1 heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
Op no. 2 expunged from this case vide order dt. 4.8.2022 and the case runs ex parte against op no. 3 vide order dt. 28.10.2022.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the above noted points of considerations which have been framed on the ground of maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action and on the question whether the complainant is a consumer in the eye of law or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim of passing direction upon the OP to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant or not, are the vital issues for determination of the fate of this complaint case and so all the points of considerations adopted in this complaint case are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of the above noted points of considerations, there is urgent necessity of making scrutiny of the material of this case record and also there is urgent necessity of scanning the evidence on record.
After going through the material of this case record and also after scanning the evidence on record this District Commission finds that the savings account being no. 11722548081 in State Bank of India, Harit Branch, Dist. Hooghly was/is lying in the name of Smt. Purnima Goswami who issued the cheque in favour of the complainant on 19.12.2021 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. But fact remains that in this instant case said Purnima Goswami has not been impleaded as a party in this case although she is a necessary party of this case and so this case is bad for defect of parties. Moreover the said Purnima Goswami has also not adduced her evidence in support of the claim of the complainant who is the son of complainant and so this case is lacking corroborative evidence.
On the background of the above noted position this District Commission finds that the OP bank authority subsequently encashed the check which was deposited by the complainant in modified new cheque leaf and also clearly said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. But surprisingly the complainant in his pleading has totally suppressed this fact. This factor is clearly indicating that the complainant has not come before the District Commission in clean hand and for that reason the complainant is not entitled to get any equitable relief in this case. It is also revealed from the case record that the bank authority informed the complainant over his mobile phone that as the cheque leaf was outdated, it was not possible to encash the said cheque and it was advised to the complainant to get the uptodate cheque book and to get money through cheque. Accordingly, as per advice of the bank authority the complainant personally appeared to the bank authority on 18.12.2021 and the said technical problem was explained to the complainant who realized the problem and applied a new cheque book and after getting new cheque book the complainant deposited the cheque leaf and that cheque was liquidated on 7.3.2022 and the said amount was transferred to the account of the complainant. This factor is clearly reflecting that there is no fault / negligence or deficiency of service on the party of the bank authority. Thus it is crystal clear that the complainant has no cause of action for institution of this complaint case.
A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that this complaint case is bad for defect of parties and there is no cause of action of the complainant for filing this case and the complainant is not entitled to get any equitable relief from this District Commission in this case as the complainant has suppressed the vital fact and so this case is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that this complaint case being no. 27 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order is passed as to cost.
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 acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
