DATE OF FILING : 27.08.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 17.02.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 17.06.2015.
Tarak Chandra Boral,
B/3, Govt. Housing Estate, P.O. Baltikuri,
P.S. Dasnagar,
Howrah 711 113.……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
- The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Howrah Branch, Code no. 91,
9, G.T. Road ( South ),
PIN 711 101.
- Assistant General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India, PAD,
15, N.S. Road,
Kolkata 700 001.
- The Estate Manager,
Estate Directorate & Ex. Officio Dy. Dsecy,
Housing Department Govt. of West Bengal,
New Secretariat Building, 9th floor, B Block,
Kolkata 700 001. …………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak, L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Tarak Chandra Boral, praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to pay / adjust the amount of his bounced cheque and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the entire period from 05.12.2013 till realization and also to direct the o.ps., being o.p. no. 1. General Manager, S.B.I., o.p. no. 2, A.G.M., R.B.I., and o.p. no. 3, Estate Manager, Housing Department, Government of West Bengal, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant under the Government of West Bengal and paid rent to the Rent Collector, Estate Directorate of West Bengal, on 07.11.2013 through cheque no. 252335 dated 01.11.2013, S.B.I., Howrah Branch, Howrah, amounting to Rs. 615/- for the month of November, 2013 to January, 2014. In the end of December, 2013 the Rent Collector returned the cheque to him and asked him to pay Rs. 615/- in cash in the office of Estate Directorate at New Secretariat Building. He paid the rent by cash. However, his issued cheque was encashed and so he asked the o.p. no. 1 to credit the amount to his S.B. A/c but in vain. He had to pay twice. There is gross deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. and so he filed this case.
- The o.p. no. 1, S.B.I., though served with notice did not appear in the case and the case is heard ex parte against o.p. no. 1.
- The o.p. no. 2 being R.B.I. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made in the claim petition and submitted that the petitioner is not a direct consumer of R.B.I. and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 2, who had no negligence on their part and they never put any pressure on the petitioner and so the case be dismissed against R.B.I.
- The o.p. no. 3, the Estate Manager, Housing Department, Government of West Bengal, contested the case by filing a written version wherein it is submitted that they would adjust the rent which was doubly paid for the period from November, 2013 to January, 2014 and they are ready to adjust the excess amount in the month of April, 2014 to June, 2014 as seen from their letter dated 21.5.2014 written to the petitioner.
6. On the above case of the parties the following issues are framed for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner is a consumer under C.P. Act, 1986 ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
7. All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration. Under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 is laid down the definition of ‘Consumer’ which means any person who buys goods for consideration or avails of services for consideration and ‘Service’ means service of any description which is made available to beneficial users as laid down in Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Thus, all the persons rendering services are within the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the services provided by the service provider like doctor, engineer, banker are all service providers and the customers of such service providers are consumers. While considering maintainability of this case we find that the petitioner paid rent through cheque which was encashed and Rs. 615/- was debited from his S.B. A/c no. 11030548132 of petitioner and he being a consumer of o.p. no. 1 the case is well maintainable in law and also the case is well maintainable against the other o.ps. also. Before going to scrutinize the other facts let us go through the documents filed by the petitioner and one such document is a letter dated 20,02.2014 written by Chief Manager, S.B.I., Howrah, to the petitioner with subject dishnour of cheque no. 252335 dated 01.11.2013 wherein the Chief Manager, S.B.I., stated that the cheque was presented in C.T.S. in work clearing twice on 05.12.2013 as well as 06.12.2013 and the instrument / cheque was cleared on the 1st day of presentation i.e., 05.12.2013 and the account of the petitioner was debited and as a result the cheque had to be returned when presented again on 06.12.2013 as payment had already been made on 05.12.2013 and the collecting bankers being the R.B.I. and S.B.I. inadvertently repaid the instrument on 06.12.2013 and then returned the same to the petitioner and the Chief Manager regretted for the inconvenience caused to the petitioner. The Chief Manager again wrote a letter dated 12.2.2014 to the A.G.M., R.B.I., Clearing Section, with subject doubly listing of cheque being no. 252335 amounting to Rs. 615/- CTS Inward Clearing dated 05.12.2013 and 06.12.2013 and further stating that the cheque no. 252335 was listed twice at CTS Inward Clearing on 05.12.2013 and 06.12.2013. S.B.I. paid this cheque on 05.12.2013 and returned the cheque on 06.12.2013 and the amount was not credited to the account of the petitioner though he received the original instrument from the payee and in view of above wanted suggestion from R.B.I. The inward clearing document showing that on both 05.12.2013 and 06.12.2013 the cheque no. 252335 amounting to Rs. 615/- were listed and presented and also the copy of the S.B. A/c. no. 11030548132 in the name of the petitioner, Tarak Boral and Tanmoy Boral showing that on 05.12.2013 cheque no. 252335 amounting to Rs. 615/- was debited from his S.B. A/c. The petitioner got back the cheque through o.p. no. 3 who advised the petitioner to deposit rent in cash and the cash receipt dated 07.11.2013 proved the fact that the petitioner paid the rent through cash also. Thus there was double payment of rent by the petitioner for which neither petitioner nor the o.p. no. 3 are responsible. It is the bankers namely o.p. no. 1 and o.p. no. 2 who committed mistake by listing the cheque doubly and sending the same for clearing on two dates namely 05.12.2013 and 06.12.2013 as is evident from the letter of Chief Manager, S.B.I., dated 20.2.2014 written to the petitioner, Tarak Chandra Boral, and the letter of Chief Manager, S.B.I., dated 12.02.2014 written to Assistant General Manager, R.B.I., Clearing Section. Thus it is noticed that the cheque was first presented for clearance on 05.12.2013 and Rs. 615/- was debited from the S.B. a/c of the petitioner and again on 06.12.2013 the bankers presented the cheque and then returned the same which ultimately reached the petitioner who then already paid the rent in cash as advised by o.p. no. 3. Thus it is solely the bankers namely o.p. nos. 1 & 2 who are jointly and severally liable for the mistakes made by them and such acts of listing the cheque twice for clearing and deducting money from the S.B. a/c of the petitioner etc. amount to deficiency in service on the part of both the bankers namely o.p. nos. 1 & 2.
8. The Estate Manager, o.p. no. 3, had already informed the petitioner as well as informed the banks that they would adjust the amount for the payment of rent for future months and thus necessary direction would be on the o.p. no. 3 to make adjustment in favour of the petitioner in the further months. However, regarding the prayer for interest @ 12% p.a. for the entire period from 05.12.2013 to till realization the petitioner is entitled @ 9% and he is also entitled to compensation for his stress, tension and both physical and mental harassment and both the bankers i.e., S.B.I. and R.B.I., o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are held responsible for such payment of interest and compensation jointly and severally.
In view of above discussion and findings, this Forum finds that the petitioner has succeeded in proving this case and in the result the claim case succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 477 of 2014 ( HDF 477 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 2 & 3 with costs of Rs. 1,000/- against o.p. no. 2 and without costs against o.p. no. 3 and also the case is allowed ex parte against o.p. no. 1 with costs of Rs. 1,000/- and the total cost of Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to the petitioner.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and thus they are liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 615/- since 05.12.2013 till realization and also the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the mental and physical harassment for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which would be shared equally and paid by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 who are jointly and severally liable.
The o.p. no. 3 is directed to adjust the deposited sum of Rs. 615/- in the succeeding months without making any delay as the rent already deposited in their account.
The o.ps. are directed to comply the order of the Forum within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner would be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. till realization as said earlier and also the petitioner would be at liberty to put the final order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
