Hon’ble Mrs. Rumki Samajdar, Member
This is a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant furnished one S.B.I. cheque vide No.000483219 for Rs. 10,674/- in favour of LICHFL as payment of monthly installment for the month of December,2014 to his loan account. Though the cheque amount had been deducted from his Bank account. But did not credited to his LICHFL head Office in his Mobile asking to clear the amount due for the month of December,2014. Then he informed the matter to the Area Manager of LICHFL, Siliguri on 28.01.2016. After that he visited LICHFL Siliguri for many time and they assured the matter will be solved shortly. Then he informed the S.B.I. Cooch Behar on 18.05.16. The Manager of S.B.I. advised him to visit and inquire from the cheque clearing House Siliguri, S.B.I. main Branch about the matter. In this way the Complainant for more than two years and eight months went from pillar to post and requested S.B.I. authorities and LICHFL authorities to trace the where abouts of the aforesaid cheque amount. But all are in vain.
Further case of the Complainant is that the LICHFL has been demanding payment of the due amount with interest and treating him as a defaulter. At last the Complainant communicated through e-mail to the different authorities of S.B.I. seeking payment certificate and document about the credit details of the aforesaid cheque. On 06.07.2017 he received a e-mail reply from S.B.I. authority. Thereafter the Manager S.B.I. Siliguri admitted in writing on 25.07.2017 that the aforesaid cheque has been sent to Mr. Momin’s account of LICHFL through mistake. Thus the mistake lies with S.B.I. Bank i.e. O.P. No.2.
Further case of the Complainant is that all of a sudden on 18.08.2017 the Complainant’s S.B.I. account vide No.32821374147 has been credited with Rs.10,671/- from S.B.I. Siliguri. This proves that the fault lies with S.B.I., i.e. O.P. No.2. In the mean time the interest for the default has incurred up to Rs.10,517/- to the LICHFL. The Complainant had to continue his harassment and humiliation for two years & Nine months due to S.B.I.’s fault. As such the Complainant has filed the instant case against the O.Ps praying for direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,517/- plus Rs.85,000/- in the tune of compensation & Rs.5,000/- as the litigation cost inter alia.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 has contested the case and filed W/V denying all material averment and has stated that the case filed by the Complainant is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to file this case. The fact of the case of the O.P. No.1 & 2 is that the Complainant deposited the alleged cheque being No.483219 amount to Rs.10,674/- only before answering O.P. No.2 S.B.I. Siliguri through O.P. No.3 by his Banker H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., Siliguri and debited the amount of the Complainant but not credited in the account of LICHFL.
Further case of the O.Ps is that on the same day same amount of cheque in the name of Selim Momin has been deposited in the said Branch but the status of the cheque amount was” insufficient fund”. Thereafter at the time of returning the said cheque of Selim Momin mistakenly returned the Complainant’s cheque. The amount of Rs.10,674/- has been credited in the LICHFL but in the name of the Selim Momin.
Further case of the O.Ps is that after detecting the matter of mistake by the O.P. No.2, the O.P. No.2 issued a letter to the H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd, Siliguri on 25.07.2017 and also issued a letter to the Manager LICHFL Siliguri on25.07.2017. No fruitful answered given by the O.P. No.3 & H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.
Further case of O.Ps is that O.P. No.2 recovered the said alleged amount from Selim Momin from Nishiganj and deposited the said amount along with interest in the account of the Complainant. And then O.P. No.2 issued a letter to the Complainant and informed him regarding the deposition of alleged amount.
Further case of the O.Ps is that the H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd must be added as a party. After the incident the Complainant nor his any representatives contact with the Branch nor with the Branch Manager and after the lapse of two years the Complainant lodged the complaint against the O.P. No.2 and falsely implicated in this case so the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The O.P. No.3 did not turn up before this Forum and as such the case proceeded ex-parte against him ( vide Order No.5 dated 11.12.17).
Considering the above pleadings following points are necessarily emerged in view of the C.P. Act, 1986.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a consumer u/s 2(1) (d) (ii) of the consumer protection Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitle to get any relief/ reliefs as he prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONs
Point Nos.1.
This point is taken up first for consideration.
It is the admitted fact that the Complainant is a consumer of the State Bank of India Cooch Behar Branch and having his account vide No.32821374147.
As per the provision laid down u/s 2(1) (d) (ii) of the consumer protection Act, 1986 the status of the Complainant is a consumer and as such he is entitled to his reliefs as he prayed for.
Point No.2.
This point is taken up for consideration.
The Complainant is a resident of S.M. Apartment (3rd Floor) Municipal Market by lane, Old post Office Para, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. Cooch Behar, Pin-736101 and O.P. No.1 i.e. the State Bank of India is also situated at Cooch Behar R.R.N. Road, P.O. & P.S. Cooch Behar. The Complainant is the consumer of the aforesaid State Bank of India. The Complainant and O.P. No.1 both falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and the claim amount of the Complainant does not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as such the instant case is maintainable and this Forum has both the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Point No.3.
This point is taken up for consideration.
Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, we find that it is admitted fact that the Complainant is having a saving Bank account with the O.P. No.1 State Bank of India vide account No.32821374174. It is also admitted that the Complainant deposited the alleged cheque being No.483219 amounting to Rs.10,674/- infavour of LICHFL Siliguri. It is also admitted fact that the Complainant’s aforesaid account was debited but the same amount was not credited in the account of the LICHFL by the S.B.I. Siliguri ( O.P. No.2).
It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant issued one S.B.I cheque to LICHFL as payment of monthly installment of his loan. Though his account has been debited but the same amount was not credited in the account of LICHFL. As such LICHFL declared the Complainant as defaulter and demanding payment of due amount with interest.The Complainant has already paid the Rs.10,674/- plus Rs.10,517/- ( interest of the defaulted installment).
On the other hand, the case of the O.P. No.1 & 2 is that on the same day the same amount of cheque in the name of Selim Momin has been also deposited in the said Branch but the status of said cheque amount was “ insufficient fund”. Thereafter at the time of returning the said cheque of Selim Momin, mistakenly returned the Complainant’s cheque. The amount of Rs.10,674/- has been credited in the account of LICHFL but in the name of Selim Momin which is totally mistake. Therefore we find there is deficiency in service on part of the O.P. No.2.
Point No.4.
On hearing of argument as well as on perusal of the documents/ papers available on the record we find that the Complainant furnish a cheque vide No.000483219 for Rs.10,674/- infavour of LICHFL as installment payment of his loan and the aforesaid amount has been debited from his account but not credited to the account of LICHFL Siliguri. From the documents filed by the Complainant, we find that he informed about the matter to the O.P. No.1,2 & 3. But they were reluctant and do not pay any heed.
Thereafter the Complainant to the concerned authorities of the S.B.I. through Mail ( Annexure-15).
From the documents filed by the Complainant i.e. Annexure- 15 it reveal that the mistake was in the part of the O.P. No.2. So, O.P. No.2 is liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant. Due to the deficiency in service of the O.P. No.2 Bank the Complainant is declared as a defaulter by the LICHFL. So O.P. No.2 is liable to compensate the Complainant. O.P. No.1 has no role in this aforesaid dispute. The only thing is that the Complainant have his saving account vide No.32821374147 with the O.P. No.1 Bank.
Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above as well as on hearing of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, it is revealed that the Bank has committed mistake, which is not intentional. For such mistake, the Bank has compensated the Complainant as per Bank’s rule. On the other hand, due to bona fide mistake on part of the Bank, the Complainant has suffered a pecuniary loss in payment of instalment to his loan from LICHFL amounting to Rs.12,000/- (approx).
Considering the un-intentional mistake of the Bank, we are of the view that it should be justified to award a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant.
Thus, all these points are disposed of accordingly.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, for ends of justice, it is
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 and 2 and ex-parte against the OP No.3 but without cost.
Considering the status of the Ops, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant Sri Sidhartha Sankar Laha, S.M. Apartment (3rd floor), Municipal Market Bye Lane, Old Post Office Para, P.S. Kotwali, P.O & Dist. Cooch Behar, PIN-736101 within 30 days from this day, failing which the Complainant will be at liberty to put this decree into execution according to law.
In case of realization of decreetal dues through execution, the Complainant will be entitled to 8% interest per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of filing of the case i.e. from 22.09.17 till realization of the entire decreetal dues.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy this Final Order/Judgement also available at www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
