OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.38/08
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
Sri Ajit Pandey -Complainant
S/O Sri Mahendra Nath Pandey
Basistha Chariali,Kamrup,Metro,Assam.
-vs-
1) Union Bank of India - Opp.party
Maidamgaon Branch, Basistha Road
Beltola,Guwahati-781029,Assam
Represented by it’s Branch Manager
and /or Principal Officer
Appearance-
Learned advocates for the complainant -Mr.Rakesh Kr.Mour.
Learned advocates for the opp.party - Mr.K.K.Bhatra.
Date of argument- 8.2.2017
Date of judgment- 17.2.2017
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Sri Ajit Pandey was admitted on 12.5.2008 and notice was served on the opp.party (union Bank of India, Maidamgaon Branch, Guwahati) ) and they also filed their written statement. The complainant filed his evidence in affidavit and he was cross-examined by Ld counsel of the opp.party side. The opp.party side files evidence of Sri Rabin Boro and Sri Biraj Kr.Mahanta in affidavit and they are cross-examined by Ld counsel of the complainant . Both sides filed their respective written argument and on 3.2.2017 . We have heard oral argument of Ld advocate Mr.Rakesh Kr.Mour for the complainant and of Ld advocate Mr.K.K.Bhatra for the opp.party ; and today, we deliver the judgment, which is as below.
2) The gist of the pleading of the complainant is that the complainant, being a businessman has a current bank account in the Maidamgaon branch (Guwahati), of Union Bank of India vide A/C No.394601010011073, where he generally kept sufficient balance in his credit. On 10.10.2007 he submitted one letter to the opp.party Union Bank for stopping payment of his account’s cheques vide Nos. 284317, 284318, 284319 & 284320 for which the opp.party bank on 10.10.07 itself charged a sum of Rs.300/- (rupees three hundred)only by deducting the same from his aforesaid bank account. The complainant again on 25.10.2007, submitted another letter to the opp. party bank to stop payment of his account’s cheques Nos 284321, 284350, for which the opp.party itself on 25.10.2007 charged Rs.120.23/-, Rs.601.13/- and Rs.168.50/-by debiting the same on 25.10.2007 itself from his bank account. The letters submitted to the opp.party on 10.10.2007 and 25.10.2007 are within the custody of the opp.party. The opp.party cleared payment of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand) only for cheque No.284322 in spite of his request to them to stop payment of the said cheque and after getting that information he contacted the opp.party, who assured him to verify the matter and to make good the loss suffered by him, but the opp.party has not done anything to make good the loss suffered by him. He also served one pleader’s notice on 7.1.2008 upon the opp.party , but no positive respond has come out. The opp.party illegally made payment of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand) vide that cheque and thereby caused loss to him and thereby they are guilty of deficiency of service towards him, and by such act they caused harassment to him for which he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) only as compensation. The opp.party is liable to return Rs.70,000/- to him along with interest @18% from 29.7.2007 till full payment and also to pay cost of the proceeding and to pay Rs.70,000/-for his business loss, Rs.30,000/-for harassing him.
3) The gist of the pleading of the opp.party is that the complainant filed the complaint with a motive to extract money from the opp.party by making false allegation against them and by suppressing the material fact of presenting a bearer cheque No.284322 for Rs.70,000/-by appearing in the bank along with Mr.Amarendra Kr.Pandey, on 29th Oct/2007 and by representing that he was in urgent need of money and both of them withdrew a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from his account No.11073 and after that withdrawal, a sum of Rs.45,000/- was credited in the account of S.M.Enterprise of Mr.Amarendra Kr.Pandey and on the same date by a voucher was duly signed by Mr.Amarendra Kr.Pandey. The complaint is not maintainable having Mr.Amarendra Kr.Pandey, who is a necessary party, was not made party in this proceeding and on the date of presenting the said token vide No.M.12934 was collected by the complainant and Mr.Amarendra Kr.Pandey by putting their signature on the instrument and proceeds of the said cheque was collected on the same date. The CBS system was newly introduced in the bank from 28.2.2007 and due to technical problem the stop payment instruction was not reflected in the computer and when the account holder himself had presented the said cheque and represented that he was in urgent need of money, a token vide No. M 12934 was issued, which was collected by the complainant along with Mr.Amarendra Kr.Pandey by putting their signature on the reverse of the Cheque No.284322, and as such there was no occasion of doubt and dispute about the genuineness of the said cheque and the bank was legally bound to make payment of the said cheque to the bearer of the cheque who himself was the account holder and drawer of the said cheque. The allegation of the complainant is not true having after the encashment of the said cheque was done by some unauthorized person he can have filed complaint before the police for such unauthorized withdrawal. But he had not lodged complaint either before the police or before the bank. The signatures of the complainant at the said cheque tallied with the specimen signature of him and they also did not find any defect in the process of payment of the said cheque ,and therefore, the payment of the said cheque is not an illegal act on their part, and for that reason their act of payment of the said cheque cannot be said to be an act of deficiency of service towards the complaint. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
4) We have perused the complaint as well as the written statement of the opp.parties. We have also perused evidence of both sides. It appears to us that the complainant, Sri Ajit Kumar Pandey has a current account vide A/C No.394601010011073. It is also found that both sides admit that the complainant placed cheque Nos. 284317, 284318, 284319 & 284320 in the opp.party bank for payment.
5) The complainant states in his pleading as well as in his affidavit that he on 10.10.2007 submitted a letter to the opp.party bank for stopping the payment of his accounts cheque Nos. 284317, 284318, 284319 & 284320 and accordingly the opp.party at the same day charged a sum of Rs.300/- by deducting the same from his bank account and he again on 25.10.2007 submitted another letter to the opp.party bank for stopping payment of his cheque Nos. 284321 & 284350 for which the opp.parties bank on the same day charged a sum of Rs. 120.23, Rs.601.13 and Rs.168.50/- from his account but the opp.party bank clear cheque Nos. 284317 (Rs.24,000/-) & 284322( Rs.70,000/-) by making payment in spite of his notice of stopping payment of said cheques. From Ext.2 the statement of account of complainant , it is clear that the opp.party bank cleared cheque No. 284317 (Rs.24,000/-) on 12.10.2007 & cheque No. 284322( Rs.70,000/-) on 29.10.2007. From Ext.2 it is further seen that the opp.party bank debited Rs.300/- on 10.10.2007 as stop payment charge and Rs. 120.23/- as stop payment charge on 25.10.2007 and another amount of Rs. 120.23/- as stop payment charge on that very day and also Rs.601.13 as stop payment charge and this fact supports the version of the complainant that he had on 10.10.2007 submitted the letter to the opp.party bank for stop payment of cheque Nos. 284317, 284318, 284319 & 284320 and for that reason Rs.300/- was debited from his account on 10.10.2007, but inspite of that the bank cleared the cheque No. 284317 (Rs.24,000/-) and that he had submitted another letter to the opp.party bank on 25.102007 to stop payment of cheque No. 284321 to 284350 and on that very day the opp.party bank deducted three amount i.e. Rs. 120.23/-,120.23/-& Rs.301.13/- as stop payment charge was debited from his account but the bank cleared the cheque No. 284322 ( Rs.70,000/-) inspite of that.
6) In this regard the plea of the opp.party is that the complainant himself along with Amarendra Kumar Pandey had withdrawn Rs.70,000/- against the cheque No. 284322 representing that he was in urgent need of money. After collecting token No. 12934 by them by putting their signature on the instrument and on the same day Mr.Amarendra Kumar Pandey deposited Rs.45,000/- in his current Account No.29113. Their another plea is that CBS system was newly introduced in their bank from 28.2.2007 and due to technical problem the stop payment instruction was not reflected in the computer. Opp.Party No.1, Sri Robin Boro state in his cross-examination that he has not seen that the complainant sent two letters dtd.10.10.2007 and 20.5.2007. From Ext.1,it is seen that , the complainant vide his letter dtd.25.10.2007 requested the opp.party bank to stop payment the cheques issued by him vide cheque No. 284321 to 284350 . This documents is not denied by the opp.party side, but their plea is that, later on, the complainant along with Mr.Amarendra Kumar Pandey withdraw Rs.70,000/- on 29.10.2007 vide cheque No. 284322. In the cross-examination O.P.W.1 states that the cheque No. 284317 (Rs.24,000/-) & cheque No. 284322( Rs.70,000/-) had been stopped for payment and stop payment charge were also debited from the account of the complainant, but both cheques were paid afterwards on verbal request of the complainant, but these version of the O.P.W.1 is denied by the complainant side. O.P.W.2 Sri Biraj Kr. Mahanta in his cross-examination admits that stop payment cheque can be paid only on written request of the drawer of the cheque as per RBI guidelines. He further states in the cross-examination that the payment of cheque No. 284322 was collected by the brother of the complainant, but token was collected by the complainant himself. He also admitted that the complainant had not filed any written request to the bank for making of payment of the said two cheques and that on the day of payment he has not tallied the signature of the drawer. From the evidence of the opp.party sides’ witnesses, it is cleared that the complainant had formally stopped payment of cheque No. 284321 to 284350 by sending written request to the opp.party bank and the bank also debited stop payment charge from the account of the complainant, but the bank cleared the cheque No. 284322( Rs.70,000/-)without receiving written or verbal request from the complainant. Secondly, it is also seen that the opp.party side fails to prove their plea that the complainant and his brother Mr.Amarendra Kumar Pandey withdrew Rs.70,000/- vide cheque No. 284322 requesting the bank that money is urgently required. Thus, it is not established that the complainant and his brother Mr.Amarendra Kumar Pandey visited the bank after sending stop payment request and they withdrew the amount of Rs.70,000/- against cheque No. 284322 stating the bank officials that the amount was urgently required, rather it is established that without request written or verbal from the complainant, the opp.party bank cleared the cheque No. 284322 although, he had issued written request to the bank for stop payment of the said cheque. Therefore, we hold that the clearance of the said cheque No. 284322( Rs.70,000/-) in favour of the brother of the complainant is an illegal act on the part of the opp.party, which amounts to deficiency of service towards him ,and therefore, opp.party side is liable to refund said Rs.70,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment (29.10.2007) and for that count, the opp.party is also liable to pay the complainant compensation atleast Rs.10,000/- for causing harassment to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
7) Because of what has been discussed as above, the complaint against the opp.party is allowed on contest and the opp.party Union Bank of India Maidamgaon Branch, Basistha Road,Beltola,Guwahati-781029,Assam is directed to pay the complainant Rs.70,000/-against the illegal clearance(payment) of the cheque No. 284322 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 29-10-2007 and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding incurred by him. The opp.party is directed to make the payment of the awarded amount within two months and, in default , the other two amounts shall also carry interest at the same rate.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Forum, Kamrup, this the 17th Feb.2017.
(Smti Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.S.Hussain)
Member President
