Order-20.
Date-17/04/2013. .
Shri A. Chanda, Member.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant is that on 07-10-2009 a sum of Rs.12,000/- was credited through inter-sol to SB Account No.00020100022592 of All India UCO Bank Officers’ Federation which is maintained at UCO Banks’ India Exchange Place, (Retail) Branch, Kolkata to the debit of SB Account No.1022010007213 of UCO Bank Officers’ Association, Rajendra Place Branch, New Delhi. It is also stated that the entire operation took place from Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi, UCO Bank Officers’ Association, an affiliated Unit of ATUCBOF and the said sum was paid by them towards monthly subscriptions due to ATUCBOF.
It is the specific case of the complainant is that subsequently the sum of Rs.12,000/- was debited without their knowledge and proper authorization from their Savings Account No.00020100022592. The matter was reported in writing vide letter No. Accts/678/2006-09 dated 27-10-2009 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, 2, India Exchange Place (Retail) to credit the amount of Rs.12,000/- in their Savings Bank Account and also referred copies to other officials i.e. General Manager and Chief Vigilance Officer, UCO Bank for necessary action. It is also stated that on 12-11-2009 Chief Manager, India, Exchange Place (Retail) Branch informed in writing to the Federation that they have been communicated by Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi that they had debited the said account to rectify mistake which was caused inadvertently at their end.
In spite of persuasions to all corners, the OP/UCO Bank has not credited the said amount to the complainant Savings Bank of Federation and, as such, the complainant finding no other way, has been compelled to file this case before the Ld. Forum.
The OP/UCO Bank contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the material allegation as made out in the P,O.C. contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The specific case on the side of the OP is that on or about 7th October, 2009 the cheque amounting to Rs.12,000/- bearing number 362591 dated 07-10-2009 drawn in favour of the complainant was submitted to Kirti Nagar Branch at New Delhi. Subsequently, it was observed that the said cheque did not bear the correct signatures for its clearance and accordingly the said transactions were reversed and/or corrected. It is also stated that under the banking laws and practice, if any, entry is passed erroneously, no authorization is required for the purpose of correcting the same. But immediately after realization of the mistake, the officers of the Bank at Kirtinagar corrected their mistake and reversed the entries which was passed erroneously. And, by such debiting the amount of Rs.12,000/- from the complainant’s account, only the errors/mistakes were corrected and as such the question of compensation does not arise in this case as neither there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank nor the complainant has suffered any loss or damage for such debiting in the facts and circumstances of the case. So, the instant case of the complainant is bad in law and requires dismissal with exemplary cost.
Upon consideration of the pleadings of the respective parties the following points are framed for adjudication .
- Is the case maintainable ?
- Is the case barred by limitation?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is there any deficiency of service as provided under the law? and
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as sought for?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration and for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Admittedly, the complainant is having a Savings Bank Account along with facility of core banking with the OP/UCO Bank. The main contention of the complainant is that on 07-10-2009 a sum of Rs.12,000/- was credited in his Savings Account through inter-sol transfer to the debit of SB Account No.1022010007213 of UCO Bank Officers’ Association, Delhi State, being maintained at Rajendra Place Branch, New Delhi and the said sum was credited in Account No.0020100022592 of the complainant being maintained with India Exchange Place, Kolkata Branch, pertaining to monthly membership subscriptions which was due to ATUCBOF wherein payee’s name and account number was written in the concerned cheque in the name of All India UCO Bank Officers’ Federation. But the complainant detected such debit transaction wherein it was stated by them that from the Monthly Statement dated 24-10-2009 the same amount of Rs.12,000/- has been arbitrarily and illegally debited from their Savings Account on 24-10-2009 without the consent of the complainant for which he lodged a complaint on 27-10-2009 addressed to the Assistant General Manager/OP Bank requesting them to re-credit the said amount of Rs.12,000/- to their SB Account. On occasions several complaints were registered against the OP/Bank but to no effect.
In support of their claim, the complainant cited judgment of the Apex iCourt in CPR 2007 (1) 59 (SC) in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. vs. Dr. B.N. Raman, Civil Appeal No.2982 of 2006.
On the other hand, the contention of the OP/UCO Bank Ltd. is that since the drawer and drawee, both were constitutes of members, who are also the employees of the OP/UCO Bank, in such a situation the OP/Bank acted in good faith, but immediately after realization of their mistake, the officers of the Bank at Kirtinagar Branch corrected the same and reversed the entries which had been passed erroneously.
We have gone through the details of the case and carefully considered the submission and perused the documents on record. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is revealed that there was procedural lapses and the subject cheque No.362591 dated 07-10-2009 was drawn in favour of the complainant which was submitted to Kirtinagar Branch at New Delhi and the said Branch induced the transaction through inter-sol in good faith. Subsequently, when it was observed by the OP/Bank that the alleged cheque did not bear the correct signatures for its clearance and accordingly, the said transaction was reversed and corrected. In its letter No.GM . PSD SECJT . 2010 .23 dated 24-03-2010, the G.M. of the OP Bank also clarified the matter specifically and where it has been stated by the OP Bank that debiting of a sum of Rs.12,000/- from the account of the complainant was done to rectify the mistakes and such rectification of any mistake does not require authorization of account holder as per Banking Laws and Practice.
Moreso, mandatory instruction of encashment of the cheque is also violated which is absolutely clear from the aforesaid letter.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 of Banking Law, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the OP/UCO Bank. As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence, the complainant petition is liable to be dismissed.
Ordered
That C.C. No.224 of 2011 is dismissed on contest but without cost.
Let copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.
I have a separate view and enclosing it in a separate sheet.
Sd.
D. Sen Maity
C.C. No.224 of 2011
Smt. D. Sen Maity, Member (L)
Admittedly the Complainant All India Uco Bank Officers. Federation has a savings bank account with the O.P. Bank alongwith core banking facility. On 7.1.2009 a su8m of Rs.12,000/- was credited in the said savings bank through intersol transfer to the debit of S.B. account number 1022010007213 of Uco Bank Officers’ Association (Delhi State) maintained at Rajendra Place Branch, New Delhi. The entire operation took place from from Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi and the said amount was credited in account no.0020100022592 in the name of the Complainant maintained with India Exchange Place, Kolkata branch. But on 24-10-2009 the said amount of Rs.12,000/- was debited from the Saving Bank account of the Complainant without any consent of him. The O.P. Bank stated that when it was observed by them that the alleged cheque did not bear the correct signature for its clearance accordingly the said transaction was reversed and corrected only to rectify its mistake on good faith and such rectificateion does not require authorization of account holder as per Banking Law and Practice and the case is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute. Moreover as the entire cause of action accrued in New Delhi and the Complaint filed beyond its jurisdiction and as such it is liable to be dismissed summarily..
The moot question is – 1) Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute is a consumer dispute.
2) Whether the Complaint filed within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
3) Whether the alleged cheque did not bear the correct signature for its clearance.
It appears from the record that both parties have filed their evidences in support of their cases. Complainant filed reply to the question s filed by the O.Ps. But inspite of getting opportunity the O.P. has not filed any reply to the questions filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has filed six case laws in support of his case. (1) 2007 (1) CPR 59 (SC) in between Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. – versus – Dr. B.N. Raman, (2) 2007 (1) CPR 59(SC) IN BETWEEN Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. – versus – Susheel Kr. Gabgotra & Anr. (3) AIR 1962 Allahabad 439 (V 49C 109) in between Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh – versus – Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies U.P. Lucknow and Anr. (4) 2008 (1) CPR 129 (NC) in between The Branch Manager Mr. Dean Leslie Roy (5) III 2004 CPJ 1 (NC) Punjab and Sind Bank – versus – Sukharaj Bajwa & Anr. (6) 2000 Bankmann 681 Madras High Court, in between Indian Bank – versus – M.S. Habibullah.
It appears from the record and an admitted fact that the present Complainant has an account in the O.P. Bank who is a service provider relating to Banking transaction and as such, the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.P. Bank within the meaning of under Section 2(d)(ii) C.P. Act, 1986 which is already a settled principal and also held by the Apex Court in 2007 (1) CPR 59 (SC).
It also appears from the record that the amount of Rs.12,000/- was credited in account no.0020100022592 in the name of the Complainant maintained with the India Exchange Place, Kolkata Branch. As such, the cause of action partly arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, the office of O.P. No.1 and 2 who are doing the same business holding their offices within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, the Complaint filed is very much within the jurisdiction of this Forum under Sectin 11 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The O.Ps categorically stated both in written version and affidavit that as the said cheque of the Uco Bank Officers’ Association was one signed they revert and corrected the said transaction on good faith as per Banking Law and Practise but the O.P. has not filed any Reserve bank regulation in support of their statement. In the affidavit, filed by the O.P. in page – 2 column 15 the O.P. stated that “the cheque in question has drawn by one Sri Vinay Setia but as per the bank record of signatory of the account in question is not the one signed on the said cheque. But the O.P. has not challenged the signature or not the one signed on the said cheque. But the O.P. has not challenged the signature or not the one signed on the said cheque. But the O.P. has not challenged the signature or taken any expert’s report regarding this. It is a settled principle of law that one who alleges it to prove his case. Furthermore, the Hon’ble National Commission already held in CPR 2008 (1) of Page No.129 that in Saving Bank Account debit entry without consent or due authorization of the customer is deficiency in bank service. In the present case both the parties are employee of the Uco Bank, but inspite of that no consent has not taken from the Complainant. The O.P. Bank never intimated about the said debit it only came to the knowledge of the Complainant afterwards. As such, no question of good faith arose.
On scrutiny of the record it appears that the complainant has stated in affidavit and attached in Annexure “B” which is a photocopy of Account Ledger Inquiry regarding online Financial Transaction Interface on 20-10-2009, wherefrom it appears that the said account of Uco Bank Officers Association is to be operated by “Either or Survivor” as per the mandate given by Uco Bank Officers. The Complainant has attached another photocopy of a cheque no.908788 of the Uco Bank, Patel Nagar Market Branch which was also encashed with single signature of the Treasurer. The O.P. has not challenged the affidavit filed by the Complainant. As such, the said affidavit remained uncontroverted and accepted as true and correct as it is held by Hon’ble High Court Allahabad 439 (V 49C 109). Moreover, the O.P. only alleged that the said cheque did not bear the correct signature but not specify the requirement, O.P.; not filed document regarding the right mode of operation.
From the above all discussion it appears to me that the O.P. has adopted unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service as they have illegally debited the amount from the Complainant’s account without any consent of the account holder. Inspite of several requests of the Complainant they did not revert the amount to the Complainant’s account. Such act of the O.P. caused lot of harassment and mental agony for which the Complainant is entitled to get compensation.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
The Case No.CC 224 of 2011 is allowed on contest. The O.P. is directed to re-credit Rs.12,000/- to the Complainant Savings Bank Account together with interest from the date of debit i.e. from 24-10-2009 at the rate of9 percent p.a. till the date of crediting. The O.P. is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only for causing harassment and mental agony. There will be no further cost.
Let copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.
