West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/191/2017

Sri Anup Kumar Acharya - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Somasish Panda

27 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

  Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

 Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

 

Complaint Case No.191/2017

 

                                                Sri Anup Kumar Acharya, S/o-Anil Kumar Acharya,                                                                             

                                                                Vill-Chaktarini, P.O. & P.S.-Salboni,

                                                                                Dist. Paschim Medinipur.                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                   ………..……Complainant.

                                                                                                      -Vs-

                                           Branch  Manager, United Bank of India, Salboni  Branch,

                                                                          P.O. & P.S.-Salboni,

                                                                        Dist. Paschim Medinipur.                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                   ....……….…Opposite Party.                                                      

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Somasish Panda, Advocate.

              For the O.P                : Mr. Santanu Das, Advocate  

                                                           

                                                             Date  of  Filing    : 29/11/2017.

                                                             Date of Disposal : 27/06/2018.

 

                     Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Anup Kumar Acharya, S/o-Anil Kumar Acharya against the O.P.-United Bank of India, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

           Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                                   The complainant has a savings account bearing no.040010107025 in the  branch office of the O.P.-United Bank of India. One Ajoy Kumar Gond issued a cheque bearing no. 119926 dated 19/01/2017 of Rs.18,000/- in favour of the complainant who on receipt of the cheque deposited the said cheque in the branch office of the O.P.-United

                                                                                                                                                        Contd………….P/2.

 

 

                                                                                                  ( 2 )

              Bank of India for its encashment on 19/01/2017.  Unfortunately the said cheque was not encashed and  in spite of repeated request, the O.P. did not give any satisfactory answer.  Therefore the complainant sent a written representation to the O.P. including the higher authority of the O.P. i.e.  Regional office of UBI, Midnapore(West) as well as in Kolkata. Since no reply was received, so the complainant lodged a complaint vide no. 201718005000260 dated 06/07/2017 before the Banking Ombudsman at Kolkata. Thereafter the O.P.-United Bank of India returned the cheque stating a reason that the said cheque was lost and subsequently it was traced out.  In the mean time, the validity of the cheque was over and the O.P. requested the complainant to revalidate the cheque from the drawer. Thereafter the Banking Ombudsman rejected the complaint on 04/10/2017 on the ground that the O.P.-United Bank of India had already returned the cheque to the complainant. It is stated that for such mistake of the O.P.-Bank, the complainant can not suffer and hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service praying for an order directing  the O.P. to return the cheque amount of Rs.18,000/- with interest and for an order of compensation and cost.

O.P.-Bank has contested this case by filing a written version.

Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Bank that the complainant submitted the cheque in question in his S/B account lying with the O.P.-United Bank of India  on 19/01/2017 and the O.P.-Bank dispatched the said cheque on 19/01/2017 through courier service to the collecting bank i.e. United Bank of India, Midnapore Branch and the said cheque was received by their Midnapore Branch on 20/01/2017.  Thereafter the  collecting branch sent a letter on 11/07/2017 to the O.P.-Bank  stating that the said cheque was untraceable for a long time and ultimately they found the same and as per instruction of the  Regional Office, they requested for revalidating the  same from the customer. O.P.-Bank    therefore returned back the cheque of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant with a request to contact the drawer of the aforesaid cheque for  revalidating the same and to present the cheque again.  It is further stated that the drawer of the cheque is a necessary party in this case to  ascertain as to whether he has already paid the said amount to the complainant or not. Further  according to the O.P., the present dispute has already been heard by the Banking Ombudsman at Kolkata on basis of an application filed by the complainant and therefore there is no scope to re-open the self same matter which has  already been heard and ordered by the competent  authority. O.P. therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

               To prove his case, the complainant Anup Kumar Acharya has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and the documents, filed by the

                                                                                                                                                               Contd………….P/3.

                                                                       

 

                                                                                                           ( 3 )

Complainant, have been marked as exhibit 1 to 8 respectively. On the other, hand O.P.-Bank has examined it’s Branch Manager Bijoy Kumar Kumhar as OPW-1.

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Is the complaint bad for non-joinder of necessary party ?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Bank ?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ? 

                                                        Decision with reasons

 Point nos.1 & 2 :-

 Maintainability of this case has been questioned by the O.P.-Bank on the ground that the drawer of the cheque and the collecting bank of the O.P. are necessary parties in this case and in their absence the  present case is not maintainable. The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service against the O.P.-Bank and not against the drawer of the cheque and the collecting bank of the O.P. Therefore they are not at all necessary party in this case. Regarding maintainability of this case it was submitted on behalf of  the O.P.-Bank that since the present dispute  of this case has been decided by a competent  authority i.e. Banking Ombudsman at Kolkata, so the present complaint is not maintainable.  Regarding this objection, we find from the order dated 04/10/2017 (Exhibit-8) passed by Banking Ombudsman that it was informed to the complainant that he is not constrained from approaching any other legal Forum or authority in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance.  In  view of that and in view of section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, the present case before this Forum is well maintainable.

These two points are accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

Point no. 3 :-

 Admittedly, the complainant deposited the cheque bearing no.119926 dated 19/01/2017 of Rs.18,000/- (Exhibit-3) issued in his favour by Ajoy Kumar Gond in his S/B account no.0340010107025 lying with the O.P.-Bank for encashment. Further it is admitted fact that the said cheque was not encashed and the same was returned to the complainant by the O.P.-Bank  along with their letter dated 14/07/2017 (Exhibit-4) and in the  said letter, the O.P.-Bank stated that their collecting branch lost the cheque and latter on they traced out the same. It thus appears that although the complainant deposited the said cheque on 19/01/2017 for encashment before the O.P.-Bank but the O.P.-Bank failed to encash the said cheque and after lapse of about 7 months they returned the cheque to the complainant with information that their collecting branch lost the cheque. When a

                                                                                                                                     Contd………..…….P/4.

 

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                  ( 4 )

cheque is deposited before a bank for encashment then it is the duty of the said bank to  encash the same within validity period of 3 months and if for any reason the cheque amount could not be encashed then duty lies upon the concerned  bank to refund the cheque with reasons for non-encashment to the customer. Here in the present case, the O.P.-Bank remained silent for about seven months and thereafter they returned the cheque to the complainant with a letter stating some reasons for non-encashment of the cheque. In the mean time, the validity period of three months of the cheque has expired thereby causing loss to the complainant. So it appears that there is gross negligency and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  for such non-encashment of the cheque in question.

This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

              Point no. 4 :-   

Since there is no evidence at all on behalf of the O.P.- Bank that the said drawer Ajoy Kumar Gond has paid the aforesaid cheque amount to the complainant, so the complainant is entitled to get the amount of cheque with interest from the O.P.-Bank for whose fault the cheque was not encashed and the cheque lost it’s validity period. In view of that and in view of our above findings, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

This point is decided accordingly in favour of the complainant.

All the points are thus disposed of.

In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

                                  Hence, it is,

                                                      ORDERED 

                                                     that the complaint case No.191/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.-Bank.

                      O.P.-Bank is directed to pay the amount of cheque of Rs.18,000/- with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till payment. O.P.-Bank is further directed to pay  Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

                     All such payments shall be made within one month from this date of order.

                      Let plain copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.

              Dictated and Corrected by me.

 

                            President                       Member                     Member                President

                                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur