IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Sri P.Das
Member(Gen.)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.19/2018
1.Begoti Tea Producer Company Ltd. : Complainants
Represented by Director, Sri Bhawani Acharya
Regd.Office at Borajuli,Nepali, via Batiamari-
Road, P.O Borajuli, P.S Behali
Dist:Biswanath, Assam
Vs.
1.UCO Bank : Opp party No.1
Biswanath Chariali branch
Dist:Biswanath,Assam 784176
2.Sri Pradip Chetry : Opp. party No.2
S/o Late D.B Chetry
Vill: Pithaguri, P.O & P.s Pithaguri
Dist:North Lakhimpur,Assam
3.HDFC Bank Ltd. : Proforma Opp. party
Chandmari Branch, MRD Road
Guwahati-781006
Appearance:
Mr.Anjan Rajkhowa,Adv. with Mr.Abhijit Kar, Adv : For the Complainant
Mr.Paramananda Kakoty,Adv. : For the Opp. party No.1
None : For Opp. party No.2
None : For Proforma opp. party
Date of argument : 19-07-2019, 03-08-2019, 02-09-2019
Date of Judgment : 27-09-2019
JUDGMENT
1. The facts leading to the complaint, in brief are that – the Complainant being a Tea Producing Company had Bank accounts with the opposite party no.1, UCO Bank, Biswanath Chariali Branch. One of the accounts is C.C A/c No.0419510010730. Sri Premlal Ganju and Sri Tapan Nirala, as Joint Signatories and Directors were authorized to run the Bank accounts including signing of Cheques. On 04-01-17, the Board of Directors passed a resolution and removed Sri Tapan Nirala from his position. One Sri Ranjan Sapkota as Chairman and another Sri Chitrakar Sharmah as Director were inducted into the new Panel of authorized signatories of the Bank accounts to join Sri Premlal Ganju. This development was communicated to the opposite party No.1 on 06-01-2017 with copy of the resolution. The opposite party No.1 duly acknowledged receipt of the copy of resolution on 07-01-2017.
2. The opposite party No.2 Sri Pradip Chetry, who was a C.E.O of the Complainant-Company, post-resignation from the Company deposited the Cheque bearing No.967652 dated 07-07-2017 for Rs.7,20,000/- drawn on the aforementioned C.C account of the Complainant-Company, into his account No.50100043499502 that stood with the proforma opposite party, on 07-08-2017 for collection and credit. The signatories of the Cheque were Sri Premlal Ganju and Sri Tapan Nirala.
3. It has been alleged in the complaint that despite the fact that opposite party No.1 was aware of the changes in the signatories, it has ignored the matter thus allowing entertainment of the Cheque and debit of the account of the Complainant-Company. That the Complainant-Company on 07-08-2017 having come to know of the irresponsible and capricious act on the part of the opposite party No.1, wrote to the opp. party on 08-08-17 demanding refund of the debited sum. But the opposite party No.1 on 05-01-2018 communicated the Complainant-Company about its inability to refund the amount.Thus, the instant case by the Complainant-company alleging deficient service on the part of the opposite party No.1 praying relief of a total sum of Rs.8,70,000/- that includes the sum of Rs.7,20,000/- debited from the Complainant-Company’s C.C.account.
4. Only opposite party No.1 contested the case by filing written version. In para 13 of its written version, it has been been stated interalia “…………………….. In the instant case, although the authorized signatory Sri Tapan Nirala was replaced later on, yet he continued to be a director of the complainant company thereafter also till date…….The instant Cheque in question was signed by a present signatory Sri Premlal Ganju as well as by a former signatory Sri Tapan Nirala who continued to be a non-signatory director of the complainant at the relevant time of presentment. The cheque
was issued in the name of the CEO of the complainant. The cheque was dated 07-07-2017. The signature of Sri Nirala matched with the previous record with OP 1 as a signatory of the complainant. The cheque was not presented before the OP1 but presented before the Proforma OP who in turn sent the cheque to the Chennai service branch of UCO Bank on 07.08.2017. Stop payment instruction was sent by the complainant on 08.08.2017 and by then the payment was released from the Chennai service branch of UCO bank to the Proforma OP”.
5. The opposite party No.1 in its voluminous written version explained as to what precautionary and watchdog-step was taken by it with its counterpart Service Centre, Chennai, to prevent future untowardities, soon after it had the knowledge on 07-01-2017 that Tapan Nirala was no longer the authorized signatory of the Complainant-Company’s accounts with the opposite party w.e.f 06-01-2017. The opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Sri Bhawani Acharya, one of the Directors of the Complainant-Company who had presented the Complaint was examined by the Complainant-Company as C.W.1. The C.W.1 in his evidence on affidavit proved 07 nos of documents as exhibits. None of the opposite parties has examined any witness. The C.W.1 was cross-examined by opposite party No.1 and 2.
We have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record including the written argument filed on both sides. The following points are drawn up for determination of the dispute.
7.POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed or any part thereof ?
DECISION WITH DISCUSSION AND REASONS
8. Before being dealt with the Points framed for determination,it would be worthwhile to mention here that at the time of scrutiny of the materials to arrive at decision on the Points, we have found that the opposite party No.2 is not at all a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He was admittedly and evidently an employee of the Complainant-Company. Since he is not a Consumer, the case against him is liable to be dismissed. Accoridngly same is dismissed against opposite party No.2. Now let us proceed to discuss and decide the Points on merit.
9.Point No.(i): As per complaint, prior to 04-01-2017, Sri Premlal Ganju and Sri Tapan Nirala both Directors of the Complainant company were authorized to run the Bank accounts including signing Cheque. But by resolution dtd 04-01-2017, Tapan Nirala was removed from the authority to run and operate Bank accounts of the Complainant. Vide new resolution Premlal Ganju, Sri
Ranjan Sapkata and Sri Chitrakar Sharmah were authorized to run and operate the Bank accounts. Such resolution of introduction and removal was made known to the opposite party Bank by a letter dtd 06-01-2017.
10. C.W.1, by exhibiting the letter dtd. 06-01-2017 (Ext-2) and copy of resolution dtd 04th January,2017 proved the case of the complainant.
11. Ext-6 is a letter dtd. 05-01-2018 issued by the opposite party Bank to the Complainant. According to the Bank, the Cheque under dispute was received for payment on 07-08-2017 and accordingly payment was made by its Service Branch, Chennai. After payment of the Cheque amount through HDFC Bank only stop payment instruction was received on 08-08-2017. Immediately Chennai Service Branch was contacted for arranging refund of the Cheque amount. But on request, the HDFC Bank refused to refund the money. In Ext-6, the opposite party Bank categorically claimed “ Premlal Ganju, Director is still a signatory of the account”. But it appears from the documents that to honour a Cheque for the Complainant-Company, joint signatures is required . That apart, Ext-2 contains two resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Complainant Company. Vide Ext-2, the Bank was intimated about resolution of removal of Sri Tapan Nirala as authorized signatory of the Bank account. Ext-2, as per seal and endorsement, was received by the opposite party Bank on 07-01-2017. The opposite party No.1 Bank has not disputed receipt of Ext-2. The opposite party No.1 miserably failed to suggest any reason why inspite of its knowledge of changing Cheque signing authority of the Complainant Company honoured the disputed Cheque signed jointly by Tapan Nirala and Prem Lal Ganju. Such action of the opposite party Bank, in our considered opinion, comes within the meaning of deficiency in service u/s 2(II) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Point under discussion is decided accordingly in favour of the Complainant.
12. Point No.(ii):
Complainant prayed for-
a)Refund of money illegally debited by the bank from the company’s account Rs.7,20,000
b)Compensation for causing mental pain inconveniences humiliation etc to complainant Rs.1,00,000
c)cost of litigation Rs. 50,000
Total Rs.8,70,000
13. It is worthwhile to mention here that on 14/09/18 opposite party No.1 Bank, filed petition No.234/18 which was put up on 11-10-18, stating that as per instruction of the opposite party No.1 Bank, the proforma opposite party Bank kept the disputed Cheque amount on hold. Therefore, prayed to direct the proforma opposite party to keep the Cheque amount on hold until further order or till disposal of the case. Upon hearing both sides, the petition was accepted. Subsequently on 07-03-2019, for the Complainant, the petition No.60/19 was filed for issuing a direction to the proforma opposite party Bank
to return the Cheque amount of Rs.7,20,000/- to the opposite party No.1 Bank. Said prayer was also allowed. That means the disputed Cheque amount is now in the account of the Complainant.
In view of such development, prayer in para 7 (a) becomes redundant. For the prayer No.(b) and (c) we are of the opinion that both ends would meet if a lumpsum amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only is given as compensation and cost with a direction to the opposite party No.1 Bank not to repeat such action and keep strict vigil on such matter in future. Point No.(ii) is decided accordingly.
ORDER
Consequently, the complaint stands allowed against opp. party No.1 The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and cost. The opp. party is also directed to keep strict vigil on the issue to avert future recurrence of such errors. The opposite party No.1 is directed to comply with the above award within 30 days of receipt of copy of the judgment and order failing which shall entail interest @ 9% per annum from the date of judgment and order till realization in full.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 27th day of September, 2019.
Dictated and corrected by:
Pronounced and delivered by :
(SMT.A. DEVEE)
President (SMT A. DEVEE)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal President Forum,Sonitpur,Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Sonitpur,Tezpur
I agree:- (Sri P.Das)
Member(Gen)
