State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. vs Mr. Ranaji Ganguli & Another on 14 September, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/94/2012 (Arisen out of Order No. 30 dt. 30.1.12 in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 257/2008 of CDRF, Unit-I, Kolkata) DATE OF FILING : 02.03.2012 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 14.09.2012 APPELLANT The Manager, Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. Having its office at Ideal Plaza 11/1, Sarat Bose Road Kolkata-700 020. RESPONDENTS 1. Mr. Ranaji Ganguli 2. Ms. Nipa Ganguli Both residing at 136, Harish Mukherjee Road Kolkata-700 025. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Pradip Pal, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Ved Sharma, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the Order No. 30 dt. 30.01.12 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 257/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint on contest with cost against the Ops thereby directing the Ops severally and jointly to refund Rs. 1,80,000/- together with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of issue and till the date of realization of the entire sum to the complainants along with a further direction to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainants within 45 days from the date of communication of the order along with a further direction to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the entire some due till fill realization.
The case of the Complainants/Respondents before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainants have purchased two Managers Cheaques/Bankers cheques/Bank Drafts amounting to Rs. 90,000/- each, bearing Nos. 148184 & 148185 from the OP Bank and on 12.3.08 at about 8 p.m. when the Complainant No. 1 was returning home by availing of a taxi the complainant left by mistake the bag containing some valuable documents including those two Bankers cheques. According to the Complainants case, when subsequently the matter came to light the complainants lodged a diary with the Kalighat Police Station on 13.03.08 and also informed the Ops in writing to stop payment immediately in respect of the aforesaid two Bank Drafts amount to Rs. 90,000/- each. Subsequently, on 22.3.08 and 15.4.08 the complainant made requests to the OP Bank to refund Rs. 1,80,000/- whereupon the OPs asked the complainants to furnish indemnity bond in this regard and the complainants in due course of time have complied with such request on the part of the OP/Bank. Thereafter the complainants made several requests to the OP/Bank for refund of the amount, to which the OP/Bank did not pay any heed and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
The OP/Bank contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that in terms of the request on behalf of the complainants to stop payment, in due course of time the OP/Bank informed the Central Bank of India not to present the Bank Drafts for clearing till the investigation in respect of the said matter was complete.
Subsequently, on the basis of a letter of one Jayanti Banerjee, the Ops came to know that those Bank Drafts were payable to her from the complainant and accordingly, the Ops gave clearance to those two drafts without notice to the complainants. According to the Ops, there was no deficiency in service at the instance of the OP/Bank and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that when it is an admitted position that the complainants were the owners of the Bank Drafts/Bankers cheques amounting to Rs. 90,000/- each and immediately after the same were lost, the complainants sent written instruction to stop payment in respect of those Bank Drafts. But for reasons best known to the OP/Bank those were released in favour of a third party and that too without intimation to the complainants. According to the Ld. District Forum, such action on the part of the OP/Bank tantamounted to deficiency in service and accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainants as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
Case laws referred to on behalf of the Appellant :-
1.
Supreme Court of India, Case No. Appeal (civil) 3041 of 2008 Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S.Mylarappa & others
2. Supreme Court of India, Case No. Appeal (crl.) 949 of 2001 Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs. Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. & others.
Case laws referred to on behalf of the Respondents :-
1.
AIR (SC) 1603 Canara Bank Vs. Canara Sales Corporation
2. AIR (SC) 2181 Vimal Chandra Grover Vs. Bank of India DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the OP/Bank that the Ld. District Forum has utterly failed to appreciate the case of the respective party and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision, which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Bank, in this case Ms. Jayanti Banerjee is a necessary party, who has been exempted from the litigation, and in the absence of Ms. Jayanti Banerjee the trial is vitiated and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside. While criticizing the impugned judgement the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted before us that without any rhyme and reason the Ld. District Forum has adjudged the Appellant/Bank to be deficient in service.
According to the Ld. Advocate, when the Appellant found that the Bank Drafts were payable to Ms. Jayanti Banerjee being an endorsee in respect of both the Bank Drafts, there should not be any adverse opinion against the Appellant/Bank and that the Bank acted in terms of the said endorsement in favour of Ms. Jayanti Banerjee in respect of both the Bank Drafts. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has urged before us that the impugned judgement suffers from material irregularity, inasmuch as, the same was disposed of in the absence of the necessary party and the manner in which the Ld. District Forum has adjudicated the real controversy between the parties is certainly not as per law and in the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the Appellant/Bank, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant/Bank and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the Complainants/Respondents have come forward with a case to the effect that the complainant purchased the Bank Drafts for value and that when the same were lost while the Complainant No. 1 was travelling in a taxi, the matter was immediately informed to the Bank with a direction to stop payment and the Appellant was informed in this regard. But the Appellant/Bank without any rhyme and reason had disbursed the same in favour of a third party, which, according to the complainants, tantamounted to deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint. The Bank, on the other hand, has tried to put up a case to the effect that when the Bank found that the Bank Drafts were endorsed in favour of one Jayanti Banerjee, the Bank in due course of time after observing all the legal formalities has disbursed the same in favour of the said Jayanti Banerjee. This act on the part of the Bank cannot be attributed to be deficiency in service and the Ld. District Forum having adjudged the case from a very oblique angle the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has traversed the case of the respective party reasonably well and in disposing of the case has considered the pros and cons of the respective partys case and has arrived at a just and proper decision. When admittedly the Bank got written information as regards loss of Bank Drafts with a request to stop payment, we do not find any tangible reason on the part of the Bank to disburse the amount in favour of a third party and that too without any intimation to the complainants. This act on the part of the Appellant/Bank, in our opinion, certainly tantamounts to deficiency in service. In this regard, we also take note of the fact that for a pretty long time the Bank remained silent when the complainants knocked the doors of the Bank for the return of the amount. We have also considered the decisions so relied upon on behalf of the Appellant/Bank.
But on perusal of those decisions we find that the facts and circumstances of those decisions are quite different from the instant one and as such, the principles laid down in the said decisions are not applicable to the instance case. Having considered the present Appeal in the light of above discussion we find no merit in the present Appeal, which, in our opinion, should be dismissed. However, we find that the Ld. District Forum while allowing the petition of complaint has granted interest @ 5% per annum on the money to be refunded by the Appellant/Bank to the Complainants together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. This granting of interest on the said money together with compensation is not permissible and accordingly, we modify the judgement to the extent that granting of interest @ 5% on the refund money of Rs. 1,80,000/- be omitted from the ordering portion of the impugned judgement.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed in part on contest but without any order as to cost.
The impugned judgement stands modified to the extent that interest @ 5% per annum allowed on the refund money of Rs. 1,80,000/- stands omitted keeping the other directions given in the impugned judgement intact.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT