West Bengal

Bankura

CC/3/2018

Sri Haradhan Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Jayanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay

19 Jul 2023

ORDER

      IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 03/2018

Date of Filing: 09.01.2018

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee                          Ld. Member. 

3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.

 

For the Complainant:  Ld Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

For the O.P.1: Ld Advocate Ashim Kr. Mondal  & for the O.P. 2 : Ld. G.P., Bankura

 

Complainant  

Sri Haradhan Mondal, S/o Late Durgadas Mondal, Vill-Rangamati, P.S.Gangajal Ghati, Bankura

 Opposite Party         

1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ban Asuria Branch, G. Ghati, Bankura.

2.Superintendent of Post Offices, Bankura Head Post Office, Bankura

 FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT                        

                                                                                                                                   

Order No.31

Dated:19-07-2023

Both parties file hazira through advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he has an S.B. A/c No. being 11882486639 with O.P. No.1 and he received an A/c Payee cheque in his favour being POSB Cheque No.817811 for Rs.30,000/- issued by O.P. No.2 against Maturity value  of Kishan Vikas Patra bearing Serial No.22BC296091 to 22BC296093 with Registration No.5206, dated:25-01-2009 for total amount of Face value of Rs.15,000/- deposited with O.P. No.2.

Thereafter he deposited the said Cheque with his Banker O.P. No.1 under receipt but astonishingly he could not find the deposit amount of Rs.30,000/- credited to his Account and the Bank Authority / O.P. 1 could not furnish any satisfactory explanation for such missing credit. The complainant has therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

O.P. No.1/Bank Authority has contested the case by filing a written version denying the complaint case of deposit of Cheque for Rs.30,000/- with O.P. No.1 and on verification from O.P. No.2 the O.P.1/ Bank Authority also could not find any clue regarding the above transaction.

O.P. No.2 / Postal Authority also contested the case by filing written version admitting however the issuance of the Cheque in question in favour of the complainant.                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                                            Contd……p/2

Page: 2

-: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission and contention and the documents placed on record from both sides the Commission finds that there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of cheque in question by the Postal Authority but the controversy arises as to whether the said cheque has been deposited or not with O.P. No.1/Bank Authority. It is also an admitted fact that the said cheque amount has not been credited to the account of the complainant. Before approaching this Commission the complainant also moved Bank Omburdsman for redressal of grievance but of no avail.

In order to resolve the issue from the practical point of view the Commission by an order dated: 30-11-2022 sought for  a report from the O.P.2/ Postal Authority as to whether the above mentioned cheque has been encashed or not but no such report could be furnished from the Postal Authority for the reason best known to them.

It is a long pending case and the Commission must find a way out for resolution of the issue legally without going into controversy as to the whereabout of the cheque. The Commission also does not prefer to go into the controversy as to the date when the cheque in question was issued by the Postal Authority and was deposited before the Bank Authority.  Accordingly the Commission thinks it just and proper in the interest of justice to direct the Postal Authority / O.P.2 to re-issue the Account Payee Cheque in favour of the complainant for the sum of Rs.30,000/- subject to execution of Indemnity Bond by the complainant with usual undertaking before the O.P.2/Postal Authority. Likewise O.P.1/Bank Authority after receipt of the cheque will credit the cheque amount to the aforesaid Account of the complainant also subject to execution of  similar Indemnity Bond.

While passing this order it is made clear that the complainant will forever be liable to prosecution if it is found that he has duped the Postal and Bank Authority by managing to get a fresh cheque issued in such fashion and in that case both the Postal and Bank Authority will have the right to recover the said amount from the complainant in due process of law. Be it made clear that immediately after issuance of fresh Cheque and encahment to the credit of the complainant the earlier Cheque issued if any shall be treated as invalid and cancelled.

The case therefore succeeds. 

                                                                                                                                                                                           Contd….p/3

Page: 3

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against both O.P.s.

O.P. No.2 is directed to re-issue Account Payee cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs.30,000/- subject to execution of Indemnity Bond by the complainant with usual undertaking as directed hereinabove and the O.P. No.1 is also directed to encash the fresh cheque to the credit of the complainant’s aforesaid Account subject to execution of similar Indemnity Bond.

The entire process must be completed within two months from this date otherwise law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 

 ____________________                _________________                _________________

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT          HON’BLE MEMBER              HON’BLE MEMBER