Per Hon’ble Mr.Narendra Kawde, Member
The complainant is a retired police personnel from Government of Maharasthra at senior level. He has filed this consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service against the opponent- Syndicate Bank as certain cheques forwarded from Treasury office, Jalna to his bank account in Mumbai with the opponent were not credited and only after considerable efforts, the proceeds which were wrongly put into Suspense account by the opponent bank were later on detected and transferred to the complainant’s Saving Bank account. The cheque amount was `12,400/-. Similarly, the fixed deposit receipt no.52369 for `1,15,000/- was lying with the opponent bank and since the complainant was required to undergo heart surgery, the fixed deposit was required to be encashed prior to maturity. The proceeds of the FDR were also erroneously transferred to Suspense account of the opponent bank instead of Saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant only after making continuous correspondence and follow up through his relatives, the bank finally came to the conclusion that due to inadvertence on their part, the treasury cheque received from Jalna and the proceeds of FDR were wrongly credited to the Suspense account. It is the allegation of the complainant that when this money was badly needed for the medical purpose (to undergo heart surgery), the opponent failed to honour the request for withdrawal of this cash amount by putting the complainant to great mental agony and inconvenience, as the money could not be utilized for the purpose of medical emergency of the complainant.
2. Opponent bank appeared by filing written version. It is admitted by the opponent bank that the cheque for `12,400/- received from Treasury office of Jalna where the complainant was then working in the police force was inadvertently kept in Suspense account of the bank instead of crediting to the account of the complainant. However, this defect was rectified later on and the opponent bank informed of having taken corrective action for crediting cheque proceeds along with interest by their letter dated 10/01/2001. Similarly, opponent bank admitted in the written version that the FDR for `1,15,000/- which was to be encashed and credited to the Saving Bank account of the complainant was erroneously again kept in the Suspense account of the opponent. However, this mistake also was rectified and the corrected entry to credit the proceeds of FDR was carried out on 14/12/1999 and the complainant was informed by their communication dated 10/07/2000.
3. Heard Learned Advocate Mr.Baliram Kamble for the complainant and Learned Advocate Mr.S.N.Acharya for the opponents and perused the record.
4. This complaint pertains to the year 2001 which was taken on board for hearing and disposal from the sine die list. On perusal of the record placed before us, it is an admitted position that the complainant was required to undergo heart operation on 16/12/1999. The Treasury cheque received from Jalna by the opponent for crediting to the Saving Bank account of the complainant was erroneously kept in Suspense account and only on complaint for non receipt of the proceed, bank acted thereafter and credited the proceeds along with interest to the complainant’s account. Similarly, the proceeds of FDR for `1,15,000/- were also mistakenly transferred to the Suspense account of the opponent instead of Saving Bank account of the complainant. This repeated mistake was also corrected later on by crediting the proceeds to the complainant’s account and the opponent bank informed the complainant by letter dated 10/07/2000 expressing their regret for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Admitted position is that the complainant had been account holder with the opponent bank for a pretty long time. Complainant thereafter frantically pursued the matter with the bank authorities to initiate action for defrauding his amounts against the concerned employee/officer of the bank. However, for long time complainant did not receive any confirmation of having taken any action against the erring official of the opponent bank. Therefore complainant filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service, fraudulent practice claiming an amount of `5 lakhs as compensation and further sum of `14 lakhs for fraudulent act on the part of the opponent.
5. Learned advocate of the opponent argued on the point of limitation stating that the cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant was in the year 1997 i.e. the time after detecting wrong credit in the Suspense account of the amount of `12,400/- on 05/05/1997. This consumer complaint has been filed in the year 2001. Therefore, he submitted that the complaint is not at all tenable since not filed within the specified time as specified under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Opponent relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement and order in Civil Appeal no.2067/2002, State Bank of India V/s. M/s.B.S.Agricultural Industries decided on 20/03/2009. That complaint was dismissed as time barred since it was not filed within a period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action by the complainant. Submission of the learned advocate of the opponent are well taken and appreciated since section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for time limit to file the consumer complaint within a period of two years from the date of occurrence of cause of action. However, it is also a settled principle of law and fact that cause of action is a bundle of facts. In the case on hand, though a wrong credit to the Suspense account instead of complainant’s account was made on 05/05/1997 but the opponent bank initiated corrective action and intimated the complainant on 10/07/2000 i.e. by the first communication. The complainant came to know about the corrective action on the part of opponent bank after putting incessant efforts only on 10/07/2000. Therefore, the cause of action that has been accrued in favour of the complainant has to be reckoned from 10/07/2000 and not from the detection of entry in Suspense account of the bank. Therefore, the objection raised by the opponent on the point of limitation is not at all sustainable.
6. Second argument on the part of the opponent about the allegation of defrauding proceeds of the treasury cheque amount and the FDR amount needs to be proved only in the competent court by giving full trial since the Consumer Fora deals with the deficiency in service. The allegations raised by the complainant of fraudulent nature of the opponent bank cannot be taken cognizance of and dealt with by us. The fact remains that when the proceeds of the cheque and FDR were badly required by the complainant for his personal medical emergency (to undergo heart surgery), these proceeds were not available to him for the wrong and erroneous action on the part of opponent bank. The opponent bank has admitted this position and conveyed their regrets in writing to the complainant. Therefore, deficiency in service against the opponent bank in not acting promptly and crediting the proceeds has been well established, which need not be proved by any other documentary evidence by the complainant. However, both the amounts i.e. proceeds of treasury cheque and encashment of FDR were detected later on lying in the Suspense account of the opponent bank and credited to the Saving bank account of the complainant. Complainant has not adduced documentary evidence to justify the huge compensation claimed on the part of deficiency in service. However, the admitted position on record is that the proceeds of the cheque and FDR were badly required for the medical emergency of the complainant, which were not made available to him due to erroneous and inadvertent act of the opponent bank. Therefore, we can imagine the agony of the complainant and his family at that point of time and had to proceed with medical treatment. Complainant and their family were required to agitate with the bank for quite a long time. Moreover, opponent has not brought on record as to what action against the erring official has been initiated by the bank and communicated to the complainant even till today. Lack of due diligence is serious anomaly on the part of the bank. Considering all these reasons, we are of the view that though there is no documentary evidence on record to justify the compensation sought for by the complainant, but awarding suitable compensation for undergoing mental agony for delayed credit will be justifiable. An amount of `3 lakhs as a compensation to the complainant will meet the ends of justice. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Consumer complaint is partly allowed.
(ii) Opponent -Syndicate Bank is directed to pay an amount of `3,00,000/- with interest @ 4% p.a. from the date of filing of this consumer complaint i.e. from 15/03/2001 within a period of 45 days.
(iii) Opponent bank to bear its own costs and pay `25,000/- as costs to the complainant.
Pronounced on 19th December, 2013.
