Order No.                 .

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he has his SB A/c No.008301701022 with the OP Bank for a long time and complainant deposited a cheque of Rs.40,000/- issued by LIC being cheque No.973665 dated 28-03-2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, Sarat Bose Road Branch, Kolkata on 11-04-2013 for encashment.  Thereafter for reasonable period with expectation complainant wanted that said amount would be credited.  But subsequently, complainant issued a cheque for Rs.11,839/- being cheque no.613608 on the above bank in favour of New India Assurance Company Ltd. (NIACL) As early premium amount for the existing mediclaim policy covering the risk of the complainant, his wife and septuagenarian mother and in between the complainant deposited the cheque of LIC on 11-04-2013 and subsequent issuance of cheque in favour of NIACL on 24-06-2013.  There was a gap of about more than two months.  But peculiar factor is that complainant subsequently came to know from intimation dated 02-07-2013 from the said NIACL that the said cheque for Rs.11,839/- dated 02-07-2013 for renewal of the mediclaim policy was dishonoured for insufficient fund and as such the said company refused to renew the said policy and blocked the same.  instantly complainant after receiving the said intimation enquired with the OP2 and then only for the first time on 04-07-2013 came to know that the said cheque of Rs.40,000/- issued by the LICI was dishonoured long ago and said intimation was issued by the HDFC Bank long ago and same was issued on 12-04-2013 on the ground of “jointly operated account singly signed”.  But fact remains the said cheque was ought to have been sent to the OP2 and/or through any other banking operational process and OP2 did not send fate of the cheque and for which complainant’s cheque issued in favour of the NIACL was dishonoured and which was caused on the mischief and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and for which complainant was suffering much and for which no stretch of imagination the said utter delinquency could be termed as usual mistake leaving any escape route for the OP to deny the liabilities arising out of such deficiency in service and in the above circumstances complainant prayed for compensation for negligent and deficiency manner of service and for harassment of the complainant in such a manner. 

          On the other hand, OPs 1 and 2 by filing written statement submitted the present complaint is not maintainable and further alleged that it was the duty of the SB passbook holder to be satisfied about his outstanding balance in the account before issuing any cheque but that was not done.  Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the OP. 

          It is also submitted that dishonour of the previous cheque and other cheques are noted duly and it was also mentioned in the pass book thee complainant did not submit it before the Forum and suppressed the whole fact and if the pass book would be placed by the complainant in that case statement of accounts of the complainant was duly noted daily that means complainant was negligent for which this complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On careful consideration of the complaint, a written statement including the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of both the parties and also the copy of bank statement as filed by the complainant it is clear that complainant deposited a cheque of Rs.40,000/- for clearance and that was noted in the pass book on 07-12-2013 and subsequent to 07-12-2013 complainant withdraw amounts by encashing cheques up to 13-04-2013 upto 13-04-2013 and fact remained on 13-04-2013 it was noted that the cheque of Rs.40,000/- was rejected as signature incomplete and default but on 12-04-2013 Rs.40,000/- was further deposited by the LICI but all these matter were not explained or disclosed in the matter by the complainant but truth is that as per RBI Guideline an account holder should ensure that cheque is issued only when there is sufficient balance of fund in his or her account but in this case the complainant has tried to convince that after deposit of cheque on 11-04-2013 he was not informed about the position of his account but he came to know on 24-06-2013 that his first cheque issued by LIC was dishonoured.  But considering the entire statement of the account of the complainant it is found that complainant updated the said account and operated the said account from 12-04-2013 to 15-01-2014 and during that time he withdraw Rs.8,935/-, Rs.7,707/-, Rs.13,184/-, Rs.14,971/- and also Rs.50,000/- during the period from 12-04-2013 to 15-01-2014.  So, it is clear that complainant was aware of the day to day position of his account and transaction and he updated the said passbook up to 15-01-2014 from 12-04-2013.  So, it is clear that it is within the knowledge of the complainant when the cheque was returned and for what purpose but that matter is suppressed and most interesting factor is that complainant at the time of filing that complaint complainant did not file his bank account pass book or copy of bank account pass book.  Practically, complainant has tried to say that he was not aware of the fate of the cheque of Rs.40,000/- issued by the LICI on or before 11-04-2013 to 24-06-2013 is not at all a truth because the statement of account against his pass book as produced by the bank simply reveals that in between the parties complainant operated the said account and withdrew amount and deposited money and updated so it is within the knowledge of the complainant what was the fate of the said cheque on deposit.  Another factor is that complainant has not stated anywhere on which date he received the said Rs.40,000/- from LICI when the previous cheque of LICI was dishonoured but at the time of argument we came to learn that complainant already received that Rs.40,000/- from LICI then it is clear there is suppression of fact on the part of the complainant.  At the same time complainant has tried to convince that the Bank Authority had been informed the matter but no reasonable or prudent man shall believe that on depositing a cheque issued by the LICI of the complainant, complainant did not take any information about the encashment or refusal but truth is that it is the duty of the depositor of cheque to be vigilant of the encashment or about the status of the same or its fate and pass book account statement simply proves that time to time complainant went to bank updated the bank pass book and withdraw money but tried to convince that he never went to bank in between the period 11-04-2013 to 24-06-2013 but that is completely false statement.

          Anyhow on behalf of the complainant three ruling reported in 2013(3) CPJ 370, 2013(3) CPR 240 and 2010(2) CPJ 1286 were referred only to support the complainant’s complaint that bank committed deficiency of service as such liable to pay compensation but considering the bank the entry made in the account of the complainant proves that dishonour of cheque of Rs.40,000/- was noted on 13-04-2013 and thereafter,complainant withdraw money Rs.8,935/-, Rs.7,707/-, Rs.13,184/-, Rs.14,971/- and also Rs.50,000/- in between the period 05-06-2013 to 15-01-2014 that means complainant had been submitting his pass book only for suppressing the fact that he had his knowledge about the dishonour of cheque but peculiarity is that complainant did not collect the said cheque from the bank but it is the duty of the customer who has deposited the cheque and whose cheque has been dishonoured to collect the cheque from the Bank when it is already noted and entire in his pass book on 13-04-2013.  So, considering the entry of the transaction in respect of the bank pass book of the complainant it is clear complainant was aware of the dishonour of his cheque as issued by the LIC and it was within his knowledge and after 13-04-2013 also complainant withdraw money from his account and in such a manner operated the said account so, it is clear that it is the within the knowledge of the complainant that on 13-04-2013 the said cheque was dishonoured but only for the purpose of procuring the relief this case is filed and it has become a practice of some consumers to file some vexatious case against the bank only for collecting money because now-a-days due to random advertisement of Consumer Department some unscrupulous customers and consumers are trying to get some relief and for that purpose suppressing the material fact they are filing the complaint and in some cases they are getting relief when the case was not contested but it is found in contested case such unscrupulous complainant has not get any relief. 

          Considering all the above facts and circumstances and the material and also relying upon the ruling we have gathered that those ruling are not at all applicable in view of the fact that the fact of those cases are completely different from the present facts and circumstances so, we are unable to apply the spirit of the ruling in the present case but entire case of the complainant is frivolous.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contested against the OPs but without cost.