This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that complainant is saving Account holder vide A/C No. 31483650221 under Opposite Party. no. 1 and its local Head office under Opposite Party No. 2 Bank since 03-11-2010 having Cheque facilities and Opposite Party 1 accordingly issued a Cheque Book containing the leaves from 501135 to 501184 and that the complainant being an employee of New Life was working on 29/08/2012 at Sitapur Mondal Market, Sitapur, P.S. Jangipara, Dist-Hooghly and that on the said date i.e. 29/08/2012 during Tiffin hour between 1 P.M. to 1.30 P.M. three blank cheque found missing from his office carry bag, accordingly the fact of the said missing of cheque was informed to the Jangipara Police Station and also inform the same to Opposite Party No. 1 with a request to stop payment of any Cheque amount from his said Bank Account.

          The complainant further states that the office of the Opposite Party No. 1 informed the complainant on 10/09/2012 that stop payment was not made due to differ of signature and that subsequently due to nonstop Cheque payment, about 51,000/- of money from the said Bank account of the complainant was withdrawn by two person namely Raju Pandit and Shyamal Paramanik through cheque vide 5011566 and 501157 which were missed in blank, through H.D.F.C. Bank, Rajarhat, New Town Branch and IDBI Bank Ltd., Bidhannagar Branch i.e. the Opposite Party No. 6 and 5 respectively  and that this complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 but amount was withdrawn from H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd and IDBI Bank Ltd by the Opposite Party No. 5 & 6 and opposite Party on 5 & 6 have /had no relation or connection with complainant at any point of time, hence they have been made parties necessary to prove the fact and that the complainant collecting information that said three cheques were handed over the Opposite Party No. 5 & 6 by the Opposite Party No. 3 & 4 who had otherwise related to the Opposite Party No. 5 & 6, hence they have been made parties to fill up the line of connection as to how the said cheques came to the hands of the Opposite Party no. 5 & 6.

                 The complainant further states that on interrogation and correspondence with the Opposite Party no. 1 it came to know that the said Bank did not made stop payment intentionally with a lame excuse as such the amount of rupees 51,000/- were withdrawn by the opposite party no. 5 & 6 with some bad intention.   Moreover the office of the Opposite Party no.1 allowed to release the cheque amount without tallying the specimen signature of the complainant negligently is which tantamount of deficiency of service by the Opposite Party Bank and that this complainant several times requested to the Opposite Party Bank regarding reimbursement of the said cheque amount of Rs. 51,000/- to the Account of the complainant but the Opposite Party Bank took no necessary steps to do the needful, hence this complainant having no other alternative compel to file this case against this Opposite Parties and that this complainant being a consumer under Opposite Party Bank is entitled to get back the said cheque amount with cost for harassment and mental agony as prayed for and that the Cause of action of the suit/Case arose on 29/08/2012 when the cheque were found missing and on 01/01/2012 where the cheque amount was withdrawn and finally on 13/10/2012 when the Opposite Party  Bank refused to reimburse the said cheque amount and day after day therefrom.

                 Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to reimburse the cheque amount of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- total amount of Rs. 51,000/- which has illegally been paid to the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 by the opposite party no. 1 and to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for harassment and mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.

                 The opposite party No. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing written objection denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them.  These opposite parties submit that the complainant of this case is a customer of State Bank of India, Jangipara Branch being account number 31483650221 and that through letter date 06/09/2012 issued by his Ld.  Advocate Joy Deb Singha Roy on behalf of complainant which duly received by Bank on 10^th   September, 2012 and through letter date 11/09/2012 issued by the complainant himself bank came to know that that on 01/09/2012, a sum of Rupees 45,000/- through cheque number 501156 and another sum of Rs.6,000/- was paid through cheque number 501156. As per complaint the said cheques were not issued by the complainant and that this is worthwhile to mentioned that the account number wrongly mentioned in the letter dated 06/09/2012 issued by his Ld. Advocate Joy Deb Singha Roy, Bank through letter dated 13/09/2013 informed the Ld. Advocate that there is no existence of the account number 3148365024 in the name of Sri Tanmoy Singha Roy as per Bank record and that this is worthwhile to mentioned that in the said letter date 1/09/2012, issued by Tanmoy Singha Roy, the signature of Tanmoy Singha Roy was differed from the Bank record.  Through letter dated 13./09/2012 Bank informed the complainant / account holder that the signature is differed from Bank record and that the copy of letters dated 13/09/2012 is copy of cheque being no. 501156, 501157 copy of signature is annexed herewith after verify the signature of the cheques with Bank record the opposite party Bank made payment so the allegations made in the complainant is not maintainable and reimbursement of the sum of Rs. 51,000/- does not arise at all. That being a Banker the opposite party Bank honour the direction of its account holder and made payment of the said cheques after comparing the signature of the Bank record and the complainant filed this case to obtain illegal gains with help of vake, afterthought allegations.

                 The opposite party No. 3 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him.  This opposite party submits that the present Opposite Party no. 3 was attached with one “NEW LIFE JOB SERVICE’, Office at Sitapur, Jamngiopara, Hooghly, Name of B.M.- Hirulal Panja.  She joined the said “NEW LIFE JOB SERVICE’ as trainee after paying Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as trainee fees (Refundable) since 02/04/2012.  The present Opposite Party No. 3 was just a trainee not never ever deals with the paper works of the said “NEW LIFE JOB SERVICE’.  Be it mentioned here that the present Opposite Party No. 3 did not complete her training at “NEW LIFE JOB SERVICE” and left the office in the month of May 2012. She never met the Complainant nor is related with any other Opposite Parties.  So the present case does not lies against the present Opposite Party no.3 and be it also mentioned here that the alleged cheques was/were Account Payee Cheques in the name of Shyamal Paramanik and Rajui Pandit, i.e. the Opposite Party no.5 and Opposite Party No.6  So the alleged cheques amounts were withdrawn by the Opposite Party no. 5 and 6 and the present Opposite Party no.3 is not related with them.  So the present Opposite Party no.3 should be discharged from this case and not to drag her in this case unnecessary and that the Complainant has failed to make the “NEW LIFE JOB SERVICE” and H.D.F.C. Bank and IDBI Bank Ltd as parties in this case and that the statements of the Petitio0ner are very much defamatory and the present Opposite Party No.3 craves leave to file a Defamatory Case against the Complainant before the Competent Court of Law and the instant case is thereof liable to be dismissed/ rejected with costs and the present opposite party no. 3 may be discharged from this case.

                 The opposite party No. 4 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him.  This opposite party submits that he has no knowledge regarding the statements made in complaint petition and prayed for dismissal of this complaint petition with exemplary cost.

                 The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

                 Complainant filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant is taken into consideration for passing final order.

     Ex parte argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant heard in full.

                 From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite parties.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite party are residence/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the saving account holder vide A/C no. 31483650221 under Opposite Party. no. 1 and its local Head office under Opposite Party No. 2 Bank since 03-11-2010 having Cheque facilities and Opposite Party 1 accordingly issued a Cheque Book containing the leaves from 501135 to 501184.

It appears from the petition of complaint that the disputes lies on the cheque being nos. 501136 to 501157 and a sum of Rs. 51,000/- in total was withdrawn illegally through the opposite party bank. The disputed cheques were lost from the possession of this complainant and the complainant never puts his signature on those cheques although the cheques were encashed and as a result this complainant suffered loss at the act or omission of the opposite part. So, by filing this complaint petition the complainant prayed relief that the opposite parties should directed to reimburse the cheques the amount of Rs. 6000/- and Rs. 41,000/- total amount of Rs. 51,000/- which has illegally been paid to the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 by the opposite party no. 1 to the complainant.

The complainant states that the missing of the cheques was informed to the Jangipara P.s. and also informed the same to the bank concern i.e. opposite party no. 1 with request to stop the payment of any cheques amount from the complainant’s said bank account. The disputes cropped up in between the parties that the opposite party no. 1 informed the complainant on 10.9.2012 that due to differ of signature the payment was not made. As a result due to nonstop cheque payment about Rs. 51,000/- of money was withdrawn from the complainant’s said account and the complainant alleged that two persons namely, Raju Pandit and Shyamal Paramanik through cheque vide 501156 and 501157 which were missed in bank though H.D.F.C. Bank Rajarhat, New Town bank branch and IDBI bank ltd., Bidhannagore branch was withdrawn by the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 and in this respect the complainant states that he has no relation with opposite party nos. 5 and 6 and the complainant states that he collected information that the said three cheques were handed over the opposite party no. 5 and by the opposite party no. 3 and 4 who had otherwise related to opposite party nos. 5 and 6.

The complainant states and argued in his BNA that the said bank did not made stop payment intentionally with a lame excuse as much the amount of Rs. 51,000/- were withdrawn by the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 with some bad intention and moreover the opposite party bank not allowed to release the cheque amount without tallying the specimen signature of the complainant next negligently which tantamount to deficiency of service of the opposite party bank.

The opposite party nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 appeared before this Commission by filing written objection/ written version and denied all the allegations made against them. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 denied the total allegations against them made by the complainant and in the written objection the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 states that the applications of the complainant is vexatious misconceived and reflection of total misconception of law not maintainable under C.P. Act and as such same should be dismissed in limini and the application made by the complainant be dismissed due to non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

The opposite party no. 3 in his written version cum written objection states and alleges that the instant case does not come under the purview of
Consumer Protection Act and the instant case has no legs to stand upon. The opposite party no. 3 alleges that in the para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are matter of record and the complainant is put to strict proof thereof. Para 7, 8 and 9 of complaint petition the opposite party no. 3 alleges that the instant petition of the complainant is totally false and denies all the allegations made against her. So, the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for and further states that the complainants of the complaint are defamatory and the instant case should therefore liable to be dismissed/ rejected with cost.

That in the written version the opposite party no. 4 states and alleges that there is no cause of action to file the present case again the opposite party no. 4.

In reply to para 2 the opposite party no. 4 admits the facts of statement of para 2 of the complaint petition. The opposite party no. 4 objected that he is no way related to any consumer disputed and he has been made an unnecessary party to the instant case.

In reply to para 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the petition of complaint the opposite party no. 4 denied that he has no knowledge regarding the statements made by the complainant further more he submits that if for the sake of argument it can he assumed that the complainant have any such information, the complainant ought to have lodge complaint before the appropriate Forum. Para 8, 9 and 10 are all beyond knowledge of the opposite party no. 4. So, there is no deficiency of service, harassment, mental agony, unfair trade practice by answering opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this answering opposite party no. 4.

After perusing the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, BNA and hearing the parties this Commission is in the opinion that opposite party nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 appeared before this Commission and filed W.V/ written objection. But subsequently they disappeared for taking action and therefore ex parte order passed against the opposite parties. Only the complainant appears and filed BNA.

Therefore relying upon the materials on record this Commission have no hesitation to hold that the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for.

The complainant states in his evidence on affidavit which is nothing but the replica of complaint petition wherein the complainant states that the complainant is the employee of New Life was working on 29.8.2012 at Sitapur Mondal market P.S. Jangipara and during tiffin hour between 1 to 1:30 p.m. three blank cheque found missing from his office carry bag and he requests the opposite party no. 1 bank to stop payment of any cheque amount from his said bank account.

The opposite party no. 1 bank informed the complainant stop payment was not made due to differs of signature and the complainant states and disputes that the opposite party no. 1 bank intentionally with a lame excuse which amount of Rs. 51,000/- were withdrawn by opposite party nos. 5 and 6.

The complainant states and disputed that several times the complainant requested the opposite party no. 1 bank regarding reimbursement of the said cheque amount. Having no other alternative the complainant compelled to file this case against the opposite parties. During trial the complainant prayed before the Commission to produce the original cheque before this Commission for sending the same before to the handwriting expert. But though allowed the petition but the opposite party no. 1 bank did not comply the order of the Commission and did not produce the alleged cheque which is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties bank.

The complainant further states and disputes that in order dt. 6.1.2020 the opposite parties were absent without steps and on repeated calls none appears for the opposite parties. So, opposite parties were directed to show cause. Thereafter on 17.1.2020 the opposite parties were absent. So, proceeding runs ex parte against the opposite parties and then the case heard ex parte against the opposite parties.

            The complainant also states that due to inaction of the opposite parties the complainant compelled to file the instant complaint case before this Commission.   It is hold that the complainant has been proved the deficiency of service against the opposite parties.

            In this connection to prove this case Xerox copies of documents have been filed by the complainant:

1. Evidence on affidavit,
2. G.D.E dt. 5.9.2019,
3. Complain dt. 10.3.2012,
4. Notice dt. 13.9.2012,
5. Written complaint dt. 8.10.2012,
6. Complain dt. 9.10.2013,
7. Complain dt. 12.10.2012,
8. Notice dt. 13.10.2012,
9. Cheque,
10.  Complaint,
11. Brief notes of argument.

In this connection the complainant filed one Xerox copy of citation of N.C.D.R.C.

From the above document it transpires that in this case though opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing written version/ written objection but thereafter the opposite parties did not appear to challenge the case of the complainant as alleged. The uncontested and unchallenged testimonies of the complainant proves the case of the complainant.

Hence,

it is

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 196 of 2014  be and the same is allowed ex parte against the opposite parties.

            The opposite party nos. 1 is directed to reimburse the cheque amount of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- total amount of Rs. 51,000/- to the complainant’s account.

            The opposite party nos. 1 to 6 are also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- jointly for harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

            The opposite parties are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 6,000/.

At the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite parties shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.