Orissa

Balangir

CC/33/2018

Samaleswari Medical store - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Bank of India , Bolangir Branch - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Mishra

04 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR
ODISHA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/33/2018
( Date of Filing : 13 Jun 2018 )
 
1. Samaleswari Medical store
At:- Gopalji Road Bolangir town Po/Ps:- Bolangir
Bolangir
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. United Bank of India , Bolangir Branch
At/Po/Ps:- Bolangir
Bolangir
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri Rabindra Kumar Tripathy PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt Jyotshna Rani Mishra MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 04 Oct 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Adv. For the Complainant -    A.K. Mishra and Others

        Adv. For the O.P.            -   Promod Kumar Tripathy

        Date  of filing of the Case  - 13.06.2018

        Date of Order                       - 04.10.2023

  

 JUDGMENT

Smt. Jyotsna Rani Mishra  Member

Brief Facts of the case -

          The case of the complainant is that , complainant has opened a current  deposit amount with the OPs Bank  bearing Account No 1409050010387 since long in the name of his shop named as  Samaleswari medical Store and he is the proprietor of the said store. Therefore the complainant is a consumer of the OP. complainant has opened the said amount for better facility of making payment in shape of cheques to the persons  from whom he purchase the medicines for his medical store to earn his livelihood.  That  the complainant deposited

-2-

Rs.150000 in his aforesaid account on dt. 05.05.2018  . so the clearing balance of said account is Rs.353601.75 which includes previous Balance of Rs.203601.75 of said Account.

  1. On dt. 03.05.2018 the complainant has issued a cheque bearing No.952050 for Rs.11112 in favour of M.S Ably  Enterprises . Ably enterprises has presented the said  cheque in his drawee Bank on dt.05.05.2018 for encashment.  Though there was sufficient fund in the account of complainant. But to his utter surprise the drawer bank returned the said cheque with reason  stating in sufficient fund.

 

  1.  Likewise the complainant . has issued Cheque bearing  No.952053 for Rs.50051 on dt.04.05.2018 in favour of M.S Harish & CO and the said company presented the said cheque for en casement on dt.05.05.2018 but the same has been returned by his drawer bank on the same day  with report.  Stated that found insufficient although there was sufficient fund in the account of complainant.

 

  1. The  complainant had also issued a cheque bearing No.293582 on dt. 07.03.2018 for Rs.20490 in favour of Kumar Medical Agencies . The said Kumar Medical agencies presented the said cheque for encashment in his drawer bank on dt.09.05.2018 but the said drawer bank returned the said cheque with report  Image not clear present again with paper.

 

  1. Again the complainant had also issued a cheque bearing No.298632 dt.06.04.2018 for Rs.108455 in favour of M.S Modi  Pharmaceuticals  The Modi Pharmaceuticals presented the aforesaid cheque on dt. 09.04.2018 in his drawer bank for encashment but the said cheque  returned on same day with report Drawers signature differs .

 

  1. The aforesaid development the complainant  requested the OP for supply of copy of entries made in his account and accordingly  the OP has supplied the same  on verification of said entries the complainant found that in all the occasions the OP has deducted a sum of Rs.930 towards cheques return charges from the account of the complainant and therefore asked the O.P to refund the same as no fault lies with him but the O.P did not care to listen the request of the complainant.

 

Because of the negligent act of the OP the complain has suffered mentally financially andrequest to refund the cheque return charges.

 

  1. Complainant relies on following document .
  2.  
  1. Copy of cheques.
  2. Return memo Receipt.
  3. Copy of Bank Statement.
  1. Having gone through the complainant its accompanied documents and hearing the complainant Prima Facie , it seemed to be a genuine case hence e admitted and notice to the OP were severed and in response they appear through their advocates and filed their written version.

 

  1. To counter the charge in the rival contention OP not admitted that complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on dt. 05.05.2018 was not reflected in his account. And funds were not available for cheque No.952050 and 952053 Available balance of said account of complainant was Rs.10,131/- , after encashed of cheque 952075,952051,952049 , so it was rightly returned as “ insufficient fund”.

 

CTS sectional Chennai head office of UBI intimated the Bank , the image not cleared and the cheque No. 298632 was dis honored draweesSignature is differ As such, OP has not rejected the sam. The head office Chennai has directly looking after the cheques.

And OP has charged a total sum of RS.930/- towards return of cheques from the account of the complain as per the guideline so there is no deficiency of service. And no cause of action arose in this case because case is not also maintainable as the head office is not made a party to this proceeding.

 

  1.  Heard the complainant pursued the materials on record with submission and vehement denials of the learned advocate for OP with arguments. After going through the pleading of both the parties   I  observed that bank has violated the consumers rights. There are mandatory clauses in the guidelines of   OP bank to help the complainant relating to insufficient  fund. Signature not matching or image not cleared when Op is going to encash the cheque but OP has failed to do so.  Besides even insufficient fund complainant being a bonafide consumer OP should have informed the fact of insufficient  fund. Whether the bank had sufficient funds in complainant account according to statement of Account of complainant to cover the cheque that were dishonored.

                      The bank is liable for dishonoring the cheques  issued by complainant as it has sufficient fund in complainant account to cover the cheques. The bank’s signature verification process was not  reasonable and accurate, as it failed to identify the genuine signature of complainant on cheques.

-4-

               The Bank  charges for operational banking systems towards return of cheques  Were not fair and also deficiency in service. The complainant suffered harassment and mental agony as a result of banks action as it was unable to pay its suppliers due to the dishonored the cheques. So I awarded the complainant and OP is liable to compensate for its losses. including harassment and  mental agony. Hence Order.

ORDER

OP is directed to pay Rs.930 /- of cheque return charges with 10% interest. I further directed to pay  Rs.20,000/- towards harassment and mental agony. And Rs.3000/- towards Litigation expenses. Within one month from the date of order. Failing which the entire amount should be paid by OP @ 12% interest. Till realization.

No award as to cost.

PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TO-DAY  04th  day of  October‘ 2023.

 

                                  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri Rabindra Kumar Tripathy]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt Jyotshna Rani Mishra]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.