West Bengal

Siliguri

86/S/2012

DURGA TRADING CO., - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER, - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 86/S/2012.                DATED : 22.09.2015. 

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE.               

            

COMPLAINANT                      : DURGA TRADING CO.,

  Represented by its Proprietor Smt. Bimala Devi

  Mahalani and by its authorized signatory

  Sri Tapan Mahalani

  Addressed at New Darjeeling More,   

  P.O. & P.S – Pradhan Nagar,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                                                      

                                           

         O.Ps.           1.       : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

                                                              Bank of India, Code No.4349,

                                                              Mallaguri Branch, P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

                                                2.         : THE ZONAL MANAGER,

                                                              Bank of India, Pranami Mandir Road,

                                                              Siliguri – 734 001.

        

                                                3.         : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

                                                              Indian Bank, Vivekananda Road Branch,

                                                              36/1, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata – 700 007.

 

                                                4.         : THE GENERAL MANAGER,

                                                              INDIAN BANK, Circle Office, 4^th Floor,

                                                              3/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road,

                                                              Kolkata – 700 001.

 

                                                5.         : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

                                                              Indian Bank, Panihati Branch,

                                                              Barasat Road, Dakhinnayan (Amarabati More),

  P.O.- Sodepur, PIN – 700 110.

 

                                                6.         : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

                                                              Axis Bank Ltd., Gurudwara Sahib Complex,

                                                              First Floor, Sevoke Road, Siliguri,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling, 734 401.

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

FOR THE COMPLAINANT           : Sri Kausik Chatterjee, Advocate.

FOR THE OP Nos.1 & 2                  : Smt. Mausumi Ghosh Choudhury, Advocate.

FOR THE OP Nos. 3, 4 & 5             : Sri Ratan Banik, Advocate.

Contd.....P/2

-:2:-

 

J U D G E M E N T

Mr. Biswanth De, Hon’ble President      

 

1.       The case of the complainant is that the complainant has current account with OP No.1.  One Utpal Roy introduced himself to the complainant as an agent and representative of the OP No.6.  the complainant issued a cheque bearing No.426654 dated 08.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.90/- drawn on OP No.1 in favour of Axis Bank.  On 13.06.2012 the complainant became known by Tapan Maharani that a sum of Rs.90,900/- had been debited from the said account of the complainant.  Tapan Maharani informed the OP No.1 about the debit, but OP No.1 did not entertain.  The OPs were also informed regarding that transaction.  It is the complainant’s case that he never issued the said in the favour of Naresh Banerjee, and it had issued the cheque for a sum of Rs.90/- drawn on OP No.1 Bank in favour of Axis Bank.  Accordingly, Pradhan Nagar P.S. was informed on 14.06.2012 and other police authorities were also informed.  Hence, the case for imposing direction upon the OPs to reaccredit the said sum of Rs.90,900/- lying with OP No.1, along with some other reliefs. 

2.       After getting summons, OP No.1 and OP No.2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  OP No.1 & 2 denied the all contentions of para no.1 by the complainant. OP No.1 & 2 admits that Rs.90,900/- was debited on 13.06.2012 in favour of Naresh Banerjee through the Indian Bank, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata.  The fact is that the contentions of para no.1 of the complainant case and the said Naresh Banerjee deposited one cheque being No.426654 dated 18.01.2012 in the account no.9660012939.  The said cheque no.426654 was initially presented before the OP No.1 through clearing on 27.01.2012 for amounting Rs.90,900/- and it was returned reason fund insufficient.  For the return of the cheque Rs.150/- was debited from the account of the complainant.

 

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

 

 

 OP No.2 received complaint from complainant regarding the said cheque dated 18.01.2012 and informed OP No.1.  Accordingly, OP No.3 was ordered to stop any further operation of the account of said Naresh Banerjee maintained with OP No.5.  But thereafter, service branch of Bank of India requested Branch Manager, Indian Bank to refund the said money and to send documents of Naresh Banerjee.  After that, AGM, Service Branch of Bank of India, Kolkata made several requests to the Indian Bank for refund the same.  On 30.08.12, AGM, Service Branch of Bank of India, Kolkata lodged a written complaint to before the Officer-in-Charge, Khardah P.S., Sodepure.  It is also case that complainant never disclosed the identity of Utpal Roy to received the said cheque from the complainant and did not disclose the story behind issuing of the said cheque.  It is also stated O PNo.1 & 2 that it is quite unusual and suspicious that having poor knowledge of the presentation of the said cheque amounting Rs.90,900/- on 27.01.2012, the complainant remained silent and never asked the OP Nos.1 & 2 for stop payment.  The OP No.1 & 2 stated that they are not responsible.  Complainant never stated the identity of Utpal Roy.  Complainant has full knowledge about the presentation of the said amount of Rs.90,900/- in two occasions and intentionally suppressed the matter for illegal gain. 

3.       OP Nos.3, 4 and 5 have contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. It is contended that one Durga Trading Company issued a cheque in favour of Naresh Banerjee amounting Rs.90,900/- and the said amount was written in figure on the said cheque.  As such the allegation of the complainant is not correct that he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.90/- and not to Naresh Banerjee.  It is positive case of the these OPs that the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.90,900/- but due to negligence act of the OP Nos.1 & 2 by passing the said amount was credited and immediately after getting the information of the problem cheque these OPs withhold a sum of Rs.66,729/-.  It is

 

Contd.....P/4

-:4:-

 

 

contention of these OPs that cheque issued by the complainant has been materially altered which was wrongly debited by Rs.90,900/- instead of Rs.90/-.  It is also contented by these OPs is that Naresh Banerjee is a necessary party in this case, but the complainant did not include the name of Naresh Banerjee as one of party to this case.  These OPs are not responsible to make any payment to the complainant.  Accordingly, the case may be dismissed.

4.       OP No.6 has filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  This OP No.6 is not in any way connected with the fact stated by the complainant.  It is contended that the complainant has opened a current account with business purpose with OIP Nos. 1 & 2.  As such the complainant is not a consumer.  It is also contended that as the subject matter of dispute is forgery, this matter requires a thorough police investigation.  As such the OP No.6 is not liable in any way.

 

Points for Determination

 

1.       Whether there is any negligence on the part of the OP Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.

2.       If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?

 

Decision with reason

 

          To prove the case the complainant has field the following documents:-

1.       Photocopy of cheque being No.426654 dated 08.01.2012.

2.       Photocopy of complaint dated 14.06.2012 to the Officer-in-Charge, Pradhan Nagar Police Station by the complainant.

3.       Photocopy of complaint dated 15.06.2012 to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata Police, Inspector, Jorasako Police Station, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Siliguri, Officer-in-Charge, Pradhan Nagar Police Station, and Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch), D.I.D.,

 

Contd.....P/5

-:5:-

 

 

Bhawani Bhawan, Alipore, Kolkata along with corresponding postal receipts.

4.       Photocopy of complaint dated 15.06.2012 to the OPs received by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 on 16.06.2012, along with the corresponding postal receipts and acknowledgement due.

5.       Photocopy of reply letter dated 21.06.2012 by the OP No.3 to Smt. Bimala Devi Mahalani, proprietor the complainant. 

5.       Photocopy of letter dated 25.07.2012 addressed to the OP No.1 by the complainant.

OP Nos.1 & 2 has filed the following documents :-

1.       Cheque being No.426654 dated 18.01.2012.

2.       Statement of Account.

3.       Application for statement of account for a period of 30.11.2011 to 21.02.2012.

4.       Letter.

5.       Letter dated 05.07.2012.

6.       Written complaint lodged to the Sodepur Police Station.

7.       Letter & seizure list of cheque. 

 

In this case the complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit.

Other Parties have also adduced evidence on affidavit.

Complainant in his evidence stated that he issued a cheque being no.426654 dated 08.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.90/- drawn on OP No.1 favouring Axis Bank to Utpal Roy.  He further stated that he has filed the cheque dated 08.01.2012 marked Annexure-1 (exibit-1).

Annexure-1 shows that PW No.1 issued a cheque in favour of Naresh Banerjee being said cheque.  It is stated that said cheque was issued to Utpal Roy but Annexure-1 shows otherwise i.e., name of Naresh Banerjee and sum amount of Rs.90,900/- in words Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred only dated 18.01.2012 on behalf of Durga Trading Company.  This Utpal Roy and Naresh Banerjee are not present.  They have not been made party in this case.  It is also stated that he at

 

Contd.....P/6

-:6:-

 

 

once informed the matter to Pradhan Nagar P.S. on 14.06.2012.  On 13.06.2012 he became known about the encashment of the aforesaid cheque.  He also informed the incident to the Commissioners of Kolkata Police and other police authorities by Exihibit-3 series.  The complainant stated that he never issued cheque in favour of Naresh Banerjee and he paid the cheque to Utpal Roy for Rs.90/- only.  But this cheque (annexure-1) and Xerox copy of the cheque no.426654 dated 18.01.2012 carries the name of Naresh Banerjee with money of Rs.90,900/-.  But the aforesaid cheque shows otherwise.  There is no expert evidence in record.  There is no other evidence to justify what is true either the cheque itself is true or the statement of PW No.1 is true.  In absence of Naresh Banerjee and Utpal Roy nothing can be presumed regarding actual incident of the said cheque. 

OP No.6 and other OPs have raised objections on the above points. 

It is also contended that one criminal case is itself is pending.  There is no end of investigation. 

Accordingly, after considering material on records we are of opinion that there is no evidence to prove the statement of the complainant.  As such the case fails due to insufficient evidence.

Hence, it is

                   O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.86/S/2012 is dismissed on contest, but without cost. 

Let copies of this Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost. 

 

 

-Member-                                                         -President-