West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/120/2016

Sri Koushik Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

 Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.120/2016

 

             Sri  Kousik Ghosh, S/O Gour Gopal Ghosh, resident of Keranitola, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur,  

             District - Paschim Medinipur. …………..………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1)The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Medinipur Branch, Rabindranagar, Old L.I.C. morh, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, PIN-721101,

2)The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Medinipur Branch, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, District Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                     

              For the Complainant: Mr. Bhabani Sankar Kamilya, Advocate.

              For the O.P.           : Mrs. Sumana Ghosh, Advocate & Mr. Dipankar Pati, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -26/04/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President-This is a case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act. filed by Sri Kausik Ghosh against Branch Manager, S.B.I., Medinipur Branch and another.

                           Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant has a Savings Bank A/C being no.20027977000 with the O.P. no.1- S.B.I., Medinipur Branch and the said A/C is in operable condition. Complainant obtained a Life Insurance Policy being no.459867085 from the O.P. no.2-L.I.C.I. on 26/03/2015 and the yearly premium of the said policy was Rs.41,071/- payable within the month of March of every year till maturity of the said policy on 26/03/2035.  For payment of premium of the said policy within the month of 2016, the complainant issued a cheque being no.277455 for Rs.41,071/- on 23/3/2016

Contd…………….P/2

 

 

( 2 )

 drawn on O.P. no.1-S.B.I., Medinipur Branch of his aforesaid S.B A/C and the said cheque was handed over to the office of the O.P. no.2, who deposited the said cheque to its’ Banker Axis Bank, Medinipur Branch on 29/3/2016 for encashment.  Said Axis Bank sent the said cheque to O.P. no.1 on 29/03/2016 for clearance but on the self same date, O.P. no.1 returned the said cheque to the Axis Bank along with a memo thereby stating that the said cheque had been dishonored due to insufficiency of fund and the Axis Bank informed the said fact vide their letter dated 5/4/2016 to the complainant.  On receiving the said letter, the complainant updated his pass book of the said S/B  A/c and it was revealed that there was a balance of Rs.68,365.29/- in his said A/C as on 29//3/2016, but the O.P.-Bank dishonored his cheque for insufficiency of fund and deducted a sum of Rs.343.50/- from his A/C towards charge of dishonor of cheque.  Complainant thereafter personally reported the said matter to the O.P. no.1 who assured him that he would look after the matter and will do the needful but no step has yet been taken by the O.P. no.1.  Complainant also reported the matter to the higher authority of the O.P. no.1 but to no effect.  Since there had been sufficient balance in the A/C of the complainant,  so the act of the O.P. no.1 in dishonoring the cheque tantamounts to deficiency in service.  For such dishonor of the cheque, the LIC policy of the complainant has been lapsed and as per clause -4 of the regulation nothing is payable from the said LIC policy thereby causing huge financial loss to the complainant.  Hence the complaint, praying for an order directing the O.P. no.1 to pay Rs.343.50/- towards the charge of the dishonor of cheque, double the amount of Rs.41,071,  a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as  compensation, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as value of the LIC policy and for cost.

                  The opposite party no.1 has contested this case by filling a written objection.     

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.1 that on 29/03/2016, they returned the disputed cheque to the Axis Bank along with a memo stating therein that the said cheque of the complainant has been dishonored due to insufficiency of fund in his account and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no.1.  It is stated by the O.P. no.1that the account of the complainant was on Hold in status since 30/04/2014 under SI Hold no.200279770 and on 31/10/2015 under SI Hold no.200279770.  It was the responsibility of the complainant to know about the status of his own, said disputed account before issuing the disputed cheque.  According to the banking rules and regulations, bank cannot remove the Hold status of an account in its’ own capacity except on the application of the account holder and so there was a deficiency in service on the part of the complainant.  The O.P.

Contd…………….P/3

 

 

( 3 )

no.1 therefore claims that they have no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with cost.

               O.P. no.2, the Branch Manager, L.I.C.I. appeared in this case and submitted a w/o but finally O.P. no.2 did not appear to contest this case.

               Complainant was given liberty to adduce evidence but by filing a petition on 21/12/2016, the complainant disclosed that he will not adduce any evidence in this case.  O.P. no.1 has examined one witness namely Sri Sibnath Roy as OPW-1 by filing a written examination –in- chief,  supported by affidavit and during his evidence,  one document  has been marked as exhibit A.  During the cross- examination of OPW-1, few documents were marked as exhibit 1 to 6 on admission.

                                                       Points for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?

2)Is the complainant consumer of the O.P.-bank ?

3)Is there any deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite party-bank ?

4)Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                   

      Decision with reasons

        For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

         It is not denied and disputed that the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. no.1, having his S/B A/C no.20027977000 lying with the O.P.-Bank.  The Pass Book of the said S/B A/C has been marked as Exhibit-1 on admission during the evidence of the OPW-1.  It is also not denied and disputed that the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.41,071/- bearing cheque no.277455 on 23/03/2016 in respect of his said S.B A/C drawn on O.P. no.1 and the said cheque was issued towards Life Insurance policy premium.  Facts remain undisputed that the complainant thereafter deposited the said cheque to Axis Bank, Medinipur Branch on 29/03/2-16 and the said Axis Bank presented the cheque before the O.P. no.1 for clearance on 29/03/2016.  In his w/o as well as in his written examination-in-chief,  OPW-1 has admitted that on 29/03/2016, O.P.-Bank returned the said cheque to the Axis Bank along with a memo stating therein that the said cheque of the complainant had been dishonored due to insufficiency of fund in his account.  Now the question arises as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-bank in dishonoring the said cheque on the ground of Insufficiency of Fund.  On this score, we find from exhibit-1

Contd…………….P/4

 

 

( 4 )

i.e. the Pass book of the said S.B A/C of the complainant that on 27/03/2016, there was balance of Rs.1,18,365/- in the said account of the complainant.  On the disputed date i.e. 29/03/2016, there was cash withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- through cheque and thereafter the balance of the said account was Rs.68,365/-.  The impugned cheque of Rs.41,071/- was dishonored on the self-same date although there was balance of Rs.68,365/-in the account of the complainant and for such dishonor of cheque,  a sum of Rs.343.50/- was also deducted from that account by the O.P.-bank.  According to the O.P.-bank, the said account of the complainant was Hold on status for which the cheque was dishonored.  In support of their said case, the O.P.-Bank has produced the Transaction enquiry regarding such Hold On status which has been marked on Exhibit-A during the evidence of OPW-1.  From this Exhibit-A, we find that Hold value was Rs.13,000/- + 13,000/- total Rs.26,000/-. As against this, it is the case of the complainant that the said loan regarding such Hold status was liquidated on 5/01/2016 and the Chief Manager of the O.P. -Bank accordingly issued a clearance certificate to that effect.  The said clearance certificate has been marked as Exhibit-4 in this case.  It was argued on behalf of the O.P.-Bank that it was a duty of the complainant-lonee to inform the bank regarding such liquidation of car loan and since the complainant did not inform the bank, so the Hold status was not withdrawn.  When the Chief Manager himself has issued liquidation certificate regarding such loan in favour of the complainant, then it was also the duty of the bank to withdraw the Hold status of the loan account.  So we are not convinced with the said argument on behalf of the O.P.-bank that it was the duty of the complainant-lonee to inform the bank regarding such liquidation of loan.  Even if, we consider the case of the O.P. no.1 that the account was Hold on status for Rs.26,000/-, even then we find form that Exhibit-1 that on 29/3/2016 when the cheque was presented for encashment,  there was balance of Rs.68,365.29/- in the account of the complainant and after deduction of the said Hold status amount of Rs.26,000/- there would have been Rs.42,365/- in the said S.B A/C of the complainant.  The cheque was presented for clearance of Rs.41,070/- and after deducting the said cheque amount,  there would have been a balance of Rs.1,250/- in the said account. So the ground for dishonoring the cheque due to insufficiency of fund due to Hold on account,  is not at all sufficient and convincing and we are therefore of the view that there was gross  deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-bank in dishonoring the dispute cheque of the complainant.  For such dishonor of cheque, the L.I.C. premium of the complainant was not deposited and according to the complainant his said policy has been lapsed for such failure to deposit the premium.  That apart, the complainant has of course suffered mental pain and agony for such dishonor of

Contd…………….P/5

 

 

( 5 )

 cheque and for lapse of L.I. policy and therefore he should be adequately compensated by the O.P.-Bank.

     All the points are accordingly disposed of in favour of the complainant.

     In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

                                                    Hence, it is,

                                                        Ordered,

                             that the complaint case no.120/2016  is allowed on contest with cost against O.P. no.1 and dismissed ex parte without cost against O.P. no.2. O.P. no.1- Branch Manager, Medinipur Branch is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-  to the complainant within a month from this date of order.

                         Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

              Dictated and Corrected by me                         

                           Sd/-B. Pramanik.                       Sd/- S. Sarkar                 Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                               President                                   Member                          President

                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur