National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Autocade vs Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. on 12 April, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 551 OF 2007 (Against the order dated 23.08.07 in S.C. Case No. 26/0/05 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata) M/s. Autocade Rep. By Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, 44, Charu Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700 033 P.S. Charu Market ........ Appellant(s) Vs. 1. Standard Chartered Bank 1/425, Gariahat Road, South, Jodhpur Park, Kolkata-700 068 2. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, Regional Sales Manager, Eastern India, 19, N.S. Road, Ist Floor, Kolkata-700 001 3. Mr. Rahul Jauheri, Banking Head, 41, Chowringhee Road, Kokata-700 071 4. Mr. Rajesh Saluja, National Sales Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 5. Mr. Bikram Issar, All India Manager, 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001 ........ Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Mukheree and Mr. Swarup Banerjee, Advocates For the Respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 : Mr. N.R. Mukherjee and Mr. Subhadeep, Advocates For the Respondents No. : N E M O 2 & 3 Dated, the 12th day of April, 2010 ORDER
PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Aggrieved by the dismissal of its complaint no. S.C. Case No. 26/0/05 by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, the State Commission) by order dated 23.08.07, the original complainant has filed the present appeal.
2. The complaint was filed before the State Commission against the respondent Bank and its officers claiming a compensation of Rs.21 lakh alleging deficiency in service on their part in not honouring five cheques issued by the complainant, two in favour of Suprava Auto Centre for Rs.41,058/- and Rs.39,201, two in favour of Tribeni Auto for Rs.17,508/- and Rs.490/- and one in favour of Sandip Ganguly for Rs.2,053/- despite there being sufficient credit balance in the account of the complainant which it was holding with the respondent bank. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties thereby denying any deficiency in service on their part. It was, however, not denied that the five cheques issued by the complainant in favour of above-named parties were dishonoured but it was sought to be explained that on the date and time when the said five cheques were presented for being cleared, the complainant did not have the requisite and sufficient balance in its bank account. The State Commission, going by the pleas put forth by the parties, evidence and material brought on record, however, held that the complainant had failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and its Officers and accordingly, dismissed the complaint by observing as under:-
On a scrutiny of the records it transpires that firstly the complainant had not specifically placed any evidence as to its having sufficient balance in the given account which the said five payment cheques were issued at particular and given points of time. There has also not been any specific evidence as to the time of clearance of the said cheques deposited towards encashment, nor any information is forthcoming as to whether such cheques were local or out-station and also whether the said cheques were deposited with specific pre-clearance from the issuing authorities. There has also not been any evidence either from the complainant as to clearing house clarification on the time and date of the cheques being presented, encashed and/or refused. Therefore, there is simply no substantive record or evidence whatsoever as to any case being established by the complainant that at the given juncture of time of clearance of payment cheques there was appropriate balance available in the said account authorizing/allowing payment by the O.Ps.
3. We have heard Mr. Chandrashekhar Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.R. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 4 and 5 and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the finding and the order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record.
In this connection, the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the standard practice of the respondent no. 1 Bank and the facilities assured by it, the complainant was entitled to the clearance of the cheques deposited by it on the date of deposit of the cheques but this practice was not adhered to by the Bank in the present case. Learned Counsel for the appellant has specifically urged that two account payee cheques of the same bank, i.e., Standard Chartered Bank bearing no. 567993 for Rs.41,058/- and no. 567996 for Rs.37,754/-, i.e., both totaling to Rs.78,812/- issued on the same bank, were deposited by the complainant in the opposite party Bank on 09.08.04 but the proceeds of the said cheques were not credited to its account till 11.08.04. He further submits that if the amount of the said two cheques had been credited in time to the account of the complainant, the five cheques issued by it in favour of three different parties could not have been returned unpaid.
He has also submitted that cheque no. 794042 dated 10.08.04 in the sum of Rs.41,058/- issued in favour of Suprava Auto Centre was cleared/honoured and accordingly, the balance amount in the appellants account was shown as Rs.22,570/- on that date although the said cheque was shown to have been returned only on 13.08.04. In this connection, he has invited our attention to the copy of the deposit slip in regard to deposit of cheque no. 567993 in the sum of Rs.41,058/- and cheque no. 567996 in the sum of Rs.37,754/- in the bank on 09.08.04.
The deposit slip bears the rubber stamp impression of the bank bearing the same date, i.e., 09.08.04. Both these cheques belonged to the same bank but of another (outstation) different branch, i.e., Sansad Marg Branch, New Delhi.
Admittedly, the collection proceeds of these two cheques were not credited to the account of the complainant on 09.08.04, i.e., the date of deposit of cheques or before 12.08.04. As would be apparent from the bank statement filed on record, the amount of Rs.78,812/- was credited to the complainants account only on 12.08.04. The endorsement is R1 from various accounts without giving the cheque numbers, i.e., 567993 and 567996 from which the proceeds were collected/credited. Surprisingly, on the same date before this entry there are entries in regard to the return of the four cheques no. 794047 for Rs.490/-, 794048 for Rs.2053/-, 794046 for Rs.17,508 and 794049 for Rs.39,201. It is important to notice that on 11.08.04, the closing balance in the account of the complainant was shown as Rs.22,570/-. The question as to whether the complainant was entitled to the credit of the proceeds of above numbered two cheques amounting to Rs.78,812/- on the date of deposit of cheques itself or how soon thereafter will be considered hereafter, but the fact remains that a credit balance of Rs.22,570/-
was lying in the account of the complainant before the start of any transactions on 12.08.04. That being so, at least three cheques numbered 794047 for Rs.490/-, 794048 for Rs.2,053 and 794046 for Rs.17,508/- totaling to Rs.20,051/- should have been encashed and honoured without any rancor and could not have been returned unpaid. There was enough balance in the account of the complainant to honour at least these three cheques. Learned counsel for the respondent bank argued that the serial order in which the entries are made in the statement of account does not necessarily show that the cheques were, in fact, presented in the same order and it may be possible that the 4th cheque bearing no. 794049 for Rs.39,201/- might have been presented first on that date and since the credit balance was not sufficient for the amount of that cheque, the cheque had to be returned. We are unable to accept this contention because looking at the matter from any angle, at least these three cheuques of smaller amounts should have been honoured by the Bank and could not have been returned for want of sufficient funds. The Bank and its officers are, therefore, guilty of deficiency in service at least to the above extent.
4. Though it was pleaded that as a practice the bank had agreed to credit the amount of deposited cheques on the date of deposit itself, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any such practice or assurance given by the respondent bank to the appellant. The two cheques bearing no. 567993 for Rs.41,058/- and cheque no. 567996 for Rs.37,754/- were though of the same bank but were drawn on an out-station branch and their clearance would require some reasonable time. The amount of Rs.78,812/- was credited to the account of the complainant on 12.08.04. We do not think that there was any undue delay in collection of the said amount, having regard to the fact that these were drawn on the Bankss Sansad Marg Branch, New Delhi.
5. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we hold that the deficiency in service is writ large on the part of the respondent bank at least in not honouring the three cheques out of the five cheques issued by the complainant and having returned the same on wholly untenable ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the complainant. Now, what should be the compensation which the complainant can legitimately claim from the respondent bank for the kind and extent of the deficiency for which the bank has been found guilty. It is not disputed that the complainant is a trader dealing in auto parts, etc., and he must be having some godwill in the trader community with whom he had business dealings. Return of three cheques of small amounts like Rs.17,508/-, 490/- and 2,053/- would have certainly shown the complainant in poor light before the dealers in whose favour these cheques were issued. It must have caused serious set back to the godwill of the complainant. Though it is difficult to quantify the non-pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant due to such a set back to its godwill and reputation, still some reasonable amount needs to be awarded to the complainant so as to compensate it in a reasonable manner. In our view, the ends of justice would be met if a lump-sum compensation of Rs.35,000/-, including Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceeding, is awarded to the complainant. We order accordingly. The first appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
..........sd/-..............
(R.C. JAIN,J) PRESIDING MEMBER .......sd/-................
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA) MEMBER YD/