DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C.NO. 125 OF 2019
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
05.08.2019 27.08.2019 18.11.2020
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member(s): Jagdish Chandra Barman
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Sayantani Maji, wife of Sri Prabhat Kumar Maji of Boalia, P.O Garia, P.S Sonarpur now Narendrapur, Kolkata-700 084, Dist. South 24-Parganas, W.B.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps : The Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Station Road, Garia Branch, Anubhav Apartment, Ground Floor, Beside Garia Station Road, P.O Garia, P.S Sonarpur now Narendrapur, Kolkata-700 084 , Dist. South 24-Parganas, W.B.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant : Prabhat Kumar Maji
Ld. Lawyer for the O.Ps : Santosh Kumar Roy
_________________________________________________________________________
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a complaint under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986.
One Smt. Sayantani Maji ( hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, CO Bank, Station Road, Garia Branch (hereinafter referred to as the O.P) , praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is a bonafide customer of the O.P and she has a savings bank account vide Account no.22880110087350 with the O.P Bank and she has cheque facility and she used to pay the tuition fees of her minor son Arkadyuti Majhi by issuing cheque/bank draft. Accordingly, she issued an account payee cheque vide no.000007 dated 8.6.2019 in favour of Techno India Group Public School (Garia) for tuition fees for the period from June 10 to October, 2019 , amounting to Rs.7125/-. But the cheque was bounced with remark “Insufficient fund”.
On 20.6.2019 the matter of bouncing of cheque was informed to the husband of the complainant over phone and the complainant was compelled to pay the said amount of Rs.7125/- plus Rs.500/-, totaling to Rs.7625/- by a Demand Draft and also pay Rs.50/- for service charge of the demand draft. On the date of presentation of the cheque the complainant had sufficient fund. But the O.P did not entertain the cheque by putting “Fund insufficient” on 20.6.2019, which is nothing but deficiency in service.
The complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs.1 lac as compensation, Rs.15000/- as cost of litigation cost, Rs.50,000/- towards harassment, negligence and mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs.550/- as cost of demand draft and its service charge.
The O.P put his appearance and filed written version on 14.11.2019 , stating that the O.P Bank received the cheque issued by the complainant through the banker of Techno Group Public (Garia) namely Punjab National Bank. But in a credit note i.e internal memo the Punjab National Bank has mentioned the wrong amount of Rs.1525/- which differs the amount mentioned in the cheque and as such the cheque was dishnonoured. There is no deficiency in service and the O.P has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
- Is the complainant a consumer in terms of the C.P Act, 1986?
- Has the complainant any cause of action to file the case?
- Had the O.P any deficiency in service?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any compensation?
- Are there any other reliefs against the O.P as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 and 2:-
Both the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and convenience.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer of the O.P as she has a savings account being no. 22880110087350. It is urged that the complainant has cause of action to file the case as the O.P dishonoured the cheque being no.000007 dated 8.6.2019 on 20.6.2019 on the plea “insufficient fund” , inspite of the fact that the complainant had sufficient fund of Rs.32680.12.
Perused the materials on record. We have considered the submission of both sides. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P has not taken part in hearing of argument but written version and evidence have been filed by the O.P.
Admittedly the complainant is a customer of the O.P as she has a savings bank account with the O.P. On perusal of the documents and materials on record, we find that the complainant is a consumer under the C.P Act, 1986 and she has cause of action to file the case against the O.P.
So, both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Point nos. 3 and 3:-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant had sufficient fund on the date of presentation of the cheque being no.000007 dated 20.6.2019. But, the O.P dishonoured the cheque on endorsement “Fund insufficient” as it appears from the annexure B1 submitted by the complainant. It is urged that the complainant had compelled to pay Rs.500/- extra on the bill amount for tuition fees of her child by way of demand draft and the serviced charge of demand draft is Rs.50/-. He also submits that the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment and the O.P has deficiency in service while dishonouring the cheque on 20.6.2019 on the ground of insufficient fund, especially when the complainant had sufficient fund on 20.6.2019.
It is urged that the plea taken by the O.P that the banker of Techno India Group Public School (Garia) sent a credit note stating the wrong amount of Rs.1525/- in lieu of Rs.7125/-, which was mentioned in the cheque and the cheque was dishonoured as the credit memo and the amount mentioned in the cheque had difference, is false.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P has not taken part in the hearing of argument. We have gone through the materials on record. It is the case of the O.P that the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured as the amount mentioned in the credit note and the amount mentioned in the cheque was different. But, no document has been produced to substantiate the said fact.
Moreover, the reason for dishonouring the cheque on the ground of “Fund insufficient” , especially when the complainant had sufficient fund on the date of presentation of the cheque (20.6.2019) has not been explained by the O.P.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P is duty bound to render proper serviced to the complainant. But the O.P had not rendered proper service to the complainant by dishonoring the cheque on 20.6.2019 on the ground of “Fund insufficient” especially when the complainant had sufficient fund on 20.6.2019. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P has deficiency in service.
It is clear from the materials on record that the complainant had to pay Rs.500/- extra as penalty to M/s Techno India Group Public School (Garia) for dishonor of her cheque and she also paid Rs.50/- for service charge of her demand draft.
Considering all these, we think that the O.P has deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost.
In our considered opinion, the O.P may be directed to pay compensation of
Rs.7000/- for her financial loss, mental pain and agony and harassment and to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDEERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P with cost of Rs.3000/-.
The O.P is directed to pay Rs.7000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant by 60 days from the date of this final order.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
The final order may also be available in the following website:confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me
