Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/87/2015

Ram Bahadur B.K. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief General manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia, Adv

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	87 of 2015
Date of Institution	11.04.2015
Date of Decision	22.04.2015

Ram Bahadur B.K. son of Sh. Dhan Bahadur BK, Resident of House No.3141/1, Sector 45, Chandigarh.

Now at : C/o M/s Micron Instruments Pvt. Ltd., #143 B, Phase I, Chandigarh.

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus

1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

.                                       …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.02.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

 2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is maintaining a single account No.33709000558 with Opposite Party No.1. Copy of the passbook is Annexure C-2. It was stated that on 08.05.2014 the complainant deposited cheque No.013013 dated 06.05.2014 with Opposite Party No.1, for a sum of Rs.59,654/- for the credit of the said saving account. It was further stated that the complainant checked his account and had a big shock to find that no credit was made by Opposite Party No.2.  It was further stated that the complainant deposited the cheque, in the said Bank, after filling up the credit voucher slip. Copy of the deposit slip is Annexure C-3.  It was further stated that  when the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.2,  it failed to provide whereabouts of the said cheque. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure C-4) to the Opposite Parties, which was duly replied by them (Annexure C-7), wherein, it was disclosed that his account number was incorrect and, as such, they credited the amount in the name of Mr.Ekra Mul Haque.  It was further stated that the customer of the Bank was recognized by account holder’s name. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.             In their written statement, Opposite Parties, stated that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Mr. Ekra Mul Haque.   It was admitted that the complainant deposited cheque No.013013 dated 06.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.59,654/- on 08.05.2014 in account No.33709000058, which belonged to Mr. Ekra Mul Haque and not him.  It was further stated that the complainant was specifically told by Opposite Party No.2, that due to his negligence, the cheque had been credited to the account belonging to Mr.Ekra Mul Haque and the Opposite Parties made all necessary efforts to get back the money from him.  It was further stated the Opposite Parties also sent a legal notice to Sh.Ekra Mul Haque, in this regard, which was received back undelivered. It was further stated that the complainant himself wrote wrong account No.33709000058, instead of his correct account No.33709000558, on the credit slip. It was further stated that the clearing system of the Bank is such that for non home branch, it does not show the account holder’s name.  It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement, filed by the Opposite Parties,                                                                   wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.   

5.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.             The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the Bank already admitted its liability for the wrong credit vide its own letter dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure C-7). He further submitted that the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the basis of hyper-technicality that Mr.Ekra Mul Haque had not been impleaded. He further submitted that the complainant had no privity of contract with the said person and the Bank had wrongly credited the amount of cheque to the said person’s account. He further submitted that the Bank took a false stand that the name of the account holder did not show in the non-home branch. The cheque, which is a negotiable instrument always bears the name of the payee and not his account number and always credited on the basis of the name firstly. He further prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

10.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.           Admittedly,  the complainant is maintaining the Savings Bank Account No.33709000558 with the State Bank of India (Opposite Parties) vide copy of the passbook Annexure C-2.  It is also the admitted fact that while filling the deposit slip (Annexure C-3), the complainant mentioned wrong account No.33709000058, which belonged to Mr.Ekra Mul Haque and not the complainant.

12.           The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint on account of non-joinder of necessary party. The answer, to this, is in the affirmative. It is true that the cheque submitted by the complainant was credited to account No.33709000058 belonging to Mr.Ekra Mul Haque. It is clearly proved from the deposit slip (Annexure C-3) that the amount of cheque deposited by the complainant, was credited to the account of Mr.Ekra Mul Haque, due to his (complainant) negligence and not on account of the negligence on the part of the Bank, especially when the clearing system of the Bank did not show the account holder’s name, if his account was of non home branch. The complainant also admitted in his rejoinder that while filling the deposit slip inadvertently one digit of the account was wrongly filled in the deposit slip but his name was correctly written.  Even the Opposite Parties sent a legal notice to Mr.Ekra Mul Haque for paying back the amount, but the same (notice) was received back undelivered. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.07.23014 (Annexure C-4) to the Opposite Parties, which was duly replied by them (Opposite Parties) vide letter dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure C-7), which reads as under :-

“With reference to your legal notice we state that Sh.Ran Bhadur B.K. has written wrong account no. as 33709000058 instead of his correct account no. as 33709000558 on credit slip. Our clearing system is such that for non home branch it does not show the account holder name if account is of non home branch, so amount was credited to that account which was written by the customer. However, when it came to our notice on 13/05/2014 we are pressing hard the customer Sh.Ekra Mul Haque to pay the amount in whose account money has been deposited and withdrawn by him also. We are also in touch with the concerned branch. We are also in process of issuing a legal notice to the customer who withdrew the amount. The amount shall be deposited back in the account of Mr.Ran Bahadur immediately on receiving the amount.”

 

It is clear from the afore-extracted reply to the legal notice dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure C-7) that the Chief Manager of State Bank of India informed the complainant that he had written wrong account No.33709000058, instead of his correct account No.33709000558. It is also proved that the complainant was informed by the Bank that its clearing system was such that for non home branch, it did not show the account holder name, and, therefore, the amount was credited to that account number, which was written by the customer (complainant).  It is pertinent to note that the fault was on the part of the complainant because he himself filled up the deposit slip and wrongly mentioned account number, which was not in his name and was in the name of some other person i.e. Ekra Mul Haque. So, as per the deposit slip, the Bank was bound to credit the amount to account No.33709000058 which was written on the deposit slip. It is also evident from the complaint that the complainant is running canteen at Phase I, Chandigarh for providing food stuffs to the employees of Micron Instruments Pvt. Ltd. and being a businessman, obviously, he knew how to fill up the deposit slip. Even, it is the duty of the complainant to check the account number, date, amount etc. at the time of filling up the deposit slip but he did not do so and wrongly mentioned the account number, which belonged to some other person i.e. Mr.Ekra Mul Haque. It is also pertinent to mention here that the name of the complainant mentioned in the passbook (Annexure C-2) as “Mr.Ran Bahadur B.K.” and he even signed the Canteen Contract (Annexure C-1), at page No.11 of the District Forum file, in the name of “Sh.Ran Bahadur B.K., Canteen Contractor”. However, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum and the appeal before this Commission in the name of “Mr.Ram Bahadur B.K” instead of Mr.Ran Bahadur B.K. So, it is clearly proved that the complainant is a careless person and he never checked his name also, whether it is right or wrong.

13.           The Opposite Parties, before the District Forum, clarified that they were pressing hard the customer Mr.Ekra Mul Haque to pay the amount in whose account the same was deposited and was withdrawn by him also.   However, the complainant did not implead Mr. Ekra Mul Haque as a party to the complaint.  Moreover, the complainant did not try to find out the address of Mr.Ekra Mul Haque because he did not file any document to show that he requested the Bank to know the whereabouts of Mr.Ekra Mul Haque.  So, it is clearly proved that the presence of Mr.Ekra Mul Haque was necessary for the just decision of the case. We are of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly held that the presence of  Mr.Ekra Mul Haque was quite necessary for effectually and completely deciding the controversy involved in the complaint.

14.           Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the District Forum was right, in dismissing the complaint, as stated above.  Hence, the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by the appellant/complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

16.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

22.04.2015                                                                                                                                                       Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER