West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/119/2015

Biswajit Samanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

&

 Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

   

Complaint Case No.  119 /2015

                                                       

                                           Biswajit Samanta…………..……………………….……Complainant.

Versus

 

1) The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Kharagpur Main,

2)The Branch Manager, S.B.I, Medinipur Branch.......…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Somasis Ponda, Advocate.

              For the O.Ps.             : Mr. Aditya  Bhakat, Advocate.

                                                  : Mrs. Sumana Ghosh, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 15 /03 /2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party no.1- Syndicate Bank having his savings A/C no.95552010013386 with the opposite party no.1 -Syndicate Bank, Kharagpur Main Branch in the District of Paschim Medinipur.  The complainant deposited one cheque bearing no.786348 dated 03/07/2014 of Rs.33,500/-  drawn on State Bank of India, Medinipur Branch in his said savings account lying with the bank of the opposite party no.1.  In spite of deposit of the said cheque, the sum was not encashed and when the matter was brought to the knowledge of opposite party no.1, they at first did not give any satisfactory explanation for non encashment of his said cheque.  The complainant, therefore, gave a representation vide letter dated 29/09/2014 to the opposite party no.1 and in reply, the opposite party no.1 informed him that the cheque has been lost in transit.  Complainant went to the opposite party - Bank and requested for encashment of cheque

         Contd……………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

but they did not take the reasonable care about the matter for re-issuing the cheque and then falsely blamed opposite party no.2- State Bank of India, Medinipur Branch for which opposite party no.2 has been made a party in this case.  It is stated that the said act of the opposite party no.1 amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint praying for directing encashment of the said cheque in question and to deposit the same in the savings account of the complainant along with up- to -date interest and for an order of payment of Rs.5000/- as litigation cost and Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and agony.

            Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling separate written objections.   In their written objection, opposite party no.2 has stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party no.2 that the complainant has no claim against them and as such the opposite party no.2 has no liability to pay any compensation and the case against opposite party no.2 is liable to be dismissed with cost.

       In their written objection, opposite party no.1 has stated that the complainant deposited the cheque which is a refund of income tax but the said cheque amount has not been credited due to on line cheque refresh.  The complainant has prayed before the income tax office for reissuing of the cheque and therefore the complainant cannot be allowed to claim twice and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

 

  Point for decision

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

                   

Decision with reasons

In this case, parties adduced no evidence but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.

Facts remains admitted by the opposite party no.1 that the complainant is a consumer  under them having his savings A/C being no. 95552010013386 lying with their bank and he deposited a cheque bearing no.786348 dated 03/07/2014 of Rs.33,500/-.  From the respective cases of the complainant and opposite party no.1, we find that it is admitted by the opposite party no.1 that the said cheque was lost in transit.  From the copy of a certificate dated 17/11/2014 issued by the opposite party no.1 we find that by that certificate opposite party no.1 has certified that the complainant deposited the said cheque in his savings account lying with their bank and they had sent the same for collection but it has been lost in transit.  It is the grievance of the complainant that the opposite party no.1 took no reasonable care about the matter so that his cheque may be re-issued by the Income Tax Department,

Contd……………P/3

 

 

( 3 )

although they were guilty of such lost of the cheque in transit.  When admittedly the complainant deposited the cheque in question in the bank of opposite party no.1, so it was the duty of the opposite party- bank to take reasonable care for encashment of the said cheque.  Admittedly, the said cheque has been lost in transit.   Complainant cannot be blamed for such loss of his cheque.  Had reasonable care been taken by opposite party no.1, the cheque would not have been lost in transit. So this act in losing the cheque in transit by opposite party no.1 amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental pain and agony to the complainant.  The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get a reasonable compensation for such mental agony and harassment and for litigation cost.  About the cheque amount, we find from the documents filed by the complainant that he has already applied before the ITO, Medinipur for issuance of duplicate cheque stating the entire fact and it is expected that the complainant will get a fresh cheque from the concerned Income Tax Department.  So, the complainant’s prayer for directing the opposite party no.1 to pay the said cheque amount with interest cannot be allowed.  The complainant is only entitled to get an order of compensation and litigation cost and accordingly the petition of complaint should be allowed.

                                       Hence, it is,

                                                         Ordered,

                                                that the complaint case no.119/2015 is  allowed in part on contest against opposite party no.1 with cost and dismissed on contest against opposite party  no.2 without cost.  Opposite party no.1 is directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation cost 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 & Corrected by me

             

                           President                                    Member                                 President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur