Date of Filing: 22.07.2013. Date of Final Order: 31.01.2014
The Case of the Complainant Sri Santosh Kumar Basak is that the Cheque No. 944247 date 12-02-2013, received by him on 27-04-2013 drawn on ICICI Bank, Cooch Behar Branch in respect of his Medi-Claim was deposited with his banker SBI, Dinhata Branch, Dist.- Cooch Behar on 29-04-2013 for crediting the amount of Rs. 5,079/- in his SB A/c No. 11262698775. Validity of the cheque was up to 12-05-2013. On 24-05-2013 on call he went to SBI, Dinhata Branch, when the bank informed him that the validity date has expired and the bank asked him to take the cheque back which he refused.
On 07-05-2013 on being his Pass Book up dated he noticed that on 29-04-2013 it was recorded in his pass book A/c; but till 06-05-2013 the SBI has not taken any action for the cheque, though there is core banking system which he could avail in his SB A/c with SBI Cooch Behar Branch. Inspite of having his mobile number in the said SBI Dinhata Branch it did not inform the fate of the cheque. In this regard he has written an application to the Branch Manager, SBI Dinhata Branch but no solution could be achieved, for which having suffered mentally and incurred lost of work he has filed the Complaint before this District Forum with a prayer for realization of Rs. 5,079/- towards the cheque, Rs.3,000/- towards work loss, Rs. 2,000/- for conveyance expenses & Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment i.e. total Rs. 30,079/- from the sole Opposite Party i.e. the Chief Branch Manager, SBI, Dinhata Branch, Dist.- Cooch Behar.
He has enclosed (1) Xerox copies of counter part of deposit slip, (2) Application to Bank, (3) Pass Book (Joint A/c in the name of Santosh Kumar Basak & Samir Kumar Basak), (4) CF of Rs. 100/- by I.P.O. and affidavit of Complaint.
On the basis of aforesaid complaint, DF Case No. 72 / 2013 dated 22-07-2013 was registered and after admission hearing Notice was issued, fixing 13-08-2013 for S/R and appearance.
On 13-08-2013 Sri Surajit Dutta as an Agent of the Opposite Party(Bank), by virtue of Appointment as an Agent, for SBI, Chief Manager Dinhata, Mr. Debasish Ghatak entered appearance and has prayed for time to file Written Version and 27-08-2013 was fixed for the same; but on that date the Opposite Party again prayed for further time and the Forum allowed the same imposing cost of Rs. 100/- fixing 09-09-2013 for written version as a must but on that date due to resolution of Local Bar on death of a Ld. Member Lawyer none appeared on repeated calls and 26-09-2013 was fixed for W/V by the Opposite Party. On that date also the Opposite Party filed petition for further date on the ground of his illness which was allowed fixing 22-10-2013 for filing W/V as last chance with cost as imposed earlier. On that date also for the Opposite Party petition was filed by his Agent for time to file W/V and 11-11-2013 was fixed for filing W/V as last chance and it was filed, after service of copy to the Complainant (who is conducted his case in person) and 29-11-2013 was fixed for filing evidence on affidavit by the parties with direction to the O.P to pay the cost imposed. On that day the Complainant had filed time petition to file his evidence and 17-12-2013 was fixed for filing evidence by both sides and payment of cost by the Opposite Party.
On 17-12-2013 the Complainant filed his memo of appearance along with his deposition on affidavit. He filed 4 original documents but those have not yet been mentioned to mark as Exhibit.
The Ld. Advocate Mr. Surajit Datta, as an Agent for the Opposite Party, filed a petition for time to file evidence.
Both the Parties were present. The Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party submits for a date for argument and has submitted that in the maintenance he would file the evidence of the Opposite Party on affidavit and it was allowed.
On perusal of the deposition of the complainant, on affidavit, it appears that the Deposition of the Complainant, on affidavit, the contains of the matters of documents filed bear no mention of marking those documents as Exhibit which is essential in such cases and hence the Forum got it marked on solemnly affirmation of the complainant as further deposition of the Complainant and marked those 4 documents and deposition on affidavit as exhibit 2 to 5 and 1 respectively.
Now, on perusal of the Complaint, the written version of the Opposite Party and the documents marked exhibits, together with evidence of the Complainant that the exhibits are complementary to the complaint & evidence of the complainant gives out a complete sense as to the case.
The Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party, however has filed the Evidence of the OP on affidavit reflecting almost the same matters, stated in the Written Version but in a different format only that also not in the Form of Evidence but Affidavit Before the Notary Public, Sadar, Cooch Behar.
The written version of the Opposite Party i.e. the Chief Manager speaks of stereotype challenge on the point of cause of action, barred by limitation, non-joinder / misjoinder of necessary parties, principle of waiver, estopple and acquisance and alleged that the case is baseless, concocted and false, and called for proof by the Complainant, alleging that the complainant had suppressed material facts and the claim is not tenable in the eye of law in view of the Opposite Party. Denied that there is no gross negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as stated in the complaint and hence the case is liable to be dismissed in limine. There are other allegations of harassment, false complaint etc.
Finally Opposite Party has admitted that the complainant deposited one cheque No. 944247 dated 12-02-2013 amounting to Rs. 5,079/- only, on 29-04-2013, issued by the ICICI Bank, after lapse of 67 days and the validity period of the said cheque is up to 11-05-2013.
The Opposite Party after receiving such cheque sent it for clearance through registered post on 07-05-2013; because for the end of every month to 1st week of every month Opposite Party was very busy and at that time all high value cheques of different Govt. Offices are cleared from this Branch and at that time huge number of Govt. Salary & Pension processing are done during this period i.e. from 29 to 7th of every month and for this reason Bank was very busy and as such the Opposite Party has no gross negligence, regarding clearance of cheque of such low value, as alleged by the Complainant.
The said cheque was out station cheque which are to be cleared through the Clearing House of SBI, Cooch Behar Main Branch and there it takes time for such clearance from Cooch Behar to Dinhata and when the said cheque matured for clearing at that time the validity of that cheque was over for the negligence of the Complainant and ICICI Bank and for this reason Opposite Party SBI Dinhata Branch did not cleared the said cheque within time. He claimed ICICI Bank liable and a necessary party in this case but there is no prayer to imp lead the ICICI as necessary party.
He further alleged that the Complainant deposited the said cheque after 67 days of the date of issue and by keeping it in his possession for a long period and intentionally filing this case shown his contention to squeeze some money from the Opposite Party.
Finally, the Opposite Party craved leave to file additional written objection, statement, document, if any, and to file all relevant documents at the time of hearing if so required but not a single document has been filed by the OP to substantiate such claim.
The Written Version filed on verification made by one chief Manager, Dinhata Branch, for the State Bank of India. The so-called Evidence filed on affidavit of the Chief Manager, Dinhata Branch, for the State Bank of India and copy of which had been served upon the Complainant has been taken into consideration.
In the light of contentions made available in the complaint the following points, necessarily come up before this Forum for consideration.
Points For Consideration
- Is the Complainant a “Consumer” as mandated by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
- Is the Opposite Party guilty of deficiency in service by not encashing the cheque within the stipulated time as mentioned in the cheque?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
Point No.1.
The Complainant being a customer of Opposite Party bank deposited the cheque in question (of ICICI Bank) to the Opposite Party i.e. the SBI within the sufficient time to encash the same from the Clearing House, at Cooch Behar Main Branch. This Complainant is maintaining the Savings Bank Account in the Opposite Party i.e. SBI for getting all sorts of services that he is entitled to. So, this complainant is a Consumer, within the definition /ambit of Sec 2 (1)(d)(ii) of C. P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The Complainant being a bonafide Consumer of the Opposite Party bank, approached before the bank to encash the cheque of ICICI bank after a lapse of 67 days but 11 working days was in hand to encash the cheque from the Clearing House at Cooch Behar. At the present point of time with the help of core banking system the banking institutions are taking least time while clearing cheque of other banks as well as outstation cheques. The story as depicted by the agent of Opposite Party bank that 8 days time is required to get a cheque from Dinhata to Cooch Behar which is nearly 20 km distance cannot be reasonably accepted. It presumes that the bank is trying to save his skin by taking a false plea of consuming time by the postal department. If it is so then it is the duty of the Opposite Party bank to establish the delay of postal department by procuring the delivery details of the registered article and the customer cannot be blamed.
Point No. 3.
It appears from the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party that after receiving the cheque from this Complainant on 29/04/2013 the Opposite Party bank to send the cheque for encashment to the Clearing House, at Cooch Behar Main Branch, on 07/05/2013 after a lapse of more than one week. The explanation regarding the delay of sending the cheque is that, it is not highly valued cheque and the period from 29th of any month up to seventh of next month being the busy / rush hours. It is not reasonable on the part of Opposite Party bank to take different measures according to value of cheques while encashing. We find, if it is so then it will be discrimination towards the customer of having low valued cheques. If the bank is busy during period as stated from 29th to 7th of next month then they should either refuse to encash the cheque within the short period or to inform the Complainant regarding the delay. But after the expiry of statutory period, the opposite party bank is trying to save himself by taking false plea. So this Forum is constrained not to accept the plea of low value and rush hours as taken by the Opposite Party bank.
On the other hand the argument put forward by the Complainant , conducting the case in person, reveals that the bank has entered Cheque number 944247 of Rs.5079/- on 07-05-2013 but has neither credited in Deposit & Balance Column.We find truth of the same from the Annexure ‘D’ vide Exhibit-5.
While discussing the Point no. 3 whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief or not, we are in a considered opinion for getting relief by this Complainant. As the Complainant being the bonafide customer of Opposite Party bank rushed to the door of bank for encashing the said cheque within 13 days of expiry of the statutory period of 3 months. But the bank was too casual to send the cheque to the clearing house at Cooch Behar after a lapse of more than one week. So the delay of more than one week i.e. 29.04.2013 to 07.05.2013 cannot be condoned. From our opinion if this delay may not took place then the opposite bank could easily encash the cheque in question within the time framed.
Now, the deficiency of the Opposite Party bank is established while not encashing the cheque even within a period of 11 working days, while CB System Banking is functioning properly.
So, the claim in the form of relief as prayed by the complainant is considered meticulously by this Forum as to award relief as prayed for, to the reasonable extent and justifiable and not beyond.
Considering all aspects we decide the case in favour of the complainant and against the sole Opposite Party bank.
ORDER
Therefore, it is Ordered that the complaint be and the same succeeds and the Complainant do get an award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, and Rs. 3000/- towards work loss, and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost, including conveyance expenses, and further Rs. 5079/- cheque value, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and hence the Opposite Party is directed to make the payment to the Complainant accordingly, failure of which the Opposite Party shall pay a cost of Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and such accumulated amount, if any, will be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be sent to the parties concerned, free of cost, by registered post with A/D forthwith as per rule.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President, President,
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar. Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar.
Member, Member,
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar. Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar.
