State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Superintendent Of Post Offices, ... vs Smt. Renu Bala Barik & Others on 16 March, 2010
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/388/2009
DATE OF FILING : 06.10.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 16.03.2010
APPELLANTS
1. The
Superintendent of Post Offices
Midnapore
Division at Old L.I.C. More,
Post
Office : Midnapore
P.s.
Kotwali, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.
2. The
Post Master, Judges Court Post Office
Post
Office : Midnapore, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.
3. The
Post Master General, South Bengal Region
Kolkata-700
071.
RESPONDENTS
1. Smt. Renu Bala Barik, Wife of Late Adhir
Barik
of Village Kadamdiha, Post Office
Kiyaboni
P.S. Garhbeta, Dist. Paschim
Medinipur.
2. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Durgachak,
Haldia, Post Office & Police
Station Durgachak (Haldia)
Dist. Purba Medinipur.
3. The Manager, State Bank of India, Tamluk
Branch,
Post Office Tamluk, Dist. Purba
Medinipur.
4. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India,
Haldia Port Branch, Post Office :
Haldia,
Dist. Purba Medinipur.
BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY
MEMBER : MR. S.COARI
FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mrs. J.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT /
O.P.S.: Mr. Snehasish Jana, Ld. Advocate
Mr.
Soumen Bose, Ld. Advocate
Mr.
S.Biswas, Ld. Advocate
Mr.
Ratul Das, Ld. Advocate
: O R D E R :
MR.
P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER This Appeal arose out of the judgement and order dt.
31.7.09 passed by Paschim Medinipur District Consumer Forum in its Complaint Case No. 130/2008.
The case of the complainant, in brief, was that on 18.12.2007 she deposited a cheque bearing no. 001804 dt. 23.10.07 for Rs. 1,70,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Haldia Branch, in her Savings Bank Account with the OP/Judges Court Post Office at Paschim Medinipur, and the amount of the cheque was not credited in her account when the concerned staff of the post office failed to give any satisfactory reply to the queries of the complainant regarding the encashment of the cheque deposited by her. The complainant then filed the complaint against the Ops/Postal authorities, HDFC Bank and State Bank of India, seeking directions upon the Ops/Postal authorities for encashment of the said cheque and for payment of litigation cost along with interest from the date of deposit of the said cheque and also for other reliefs as deemed fit, alleging deficiency in service on part of the Ops.
The OP No. 2 before the Ld. Forum below namely the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Medinipur Division contested the case by filing written objection, while the other Ops did not turn up. In its written version the OP No. 2 contended inter alia that they received the said cheque from OP No. 3/Post Master, Judges Court Post Office, on 20.12.07 and sent the same to their District Headquarter at Tamluk on 17.1.08 for encashment of the cheque through State Bank of India, Tamluk Branch.
Tamluk Post Office in turn sent the cheque to SBI, Tamluk Branch on 24.1.08 for encashment, but the SBI, Tamluk branch did not give any intimation to them regarding encashment of the cheque inspite of several reminders were sent to them. Therefore, it was claimed that there was no deficiency in service on part of the OPs/Postal authorities.
The OP No. 5, SBI, Tamluk Branch, also appeared and filed written objection denying their liability for the delay for encashment of the cheque in question contending inter alia that they sent the cheque to the SBI, Haldia Port Branch, on 31.01.08 and subsequently sent the clearance report to the Tamluk Post Office on 7.4.09.
The Ld. Forum below after hearing both sides passed its judgement and order as under :-
That the complaint be allowed on contest. The OP No. 2 is directed to pay interest on Rs. 1,70,000/- (credited in the S.B.A/C of the complainant on 28.5.09) @ 10% per annum from 01.01.08 till 28.05.09 within seven days of communication of this order failing which they are liable to pay interest thereon @ 12% per annum for the period.
The OP No. 2 is further directed to pay Rs. 5000/- to the complainant towards compensation for her harassment and litigation cost, within one month of communication of this order failing which they are liable to pay interest thereon @ 12% per annum till payment.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Ld. Forum below the Ops/Postal Authorities have filed the present Appeal contending inter alia that the Ld. Forum below failed to consider the fact that the Appellants/Ops/Postal authorities had no laches or negligence in taking appropriate steps for encashment of the cheque deposited by the complainant/Respondent No. 1 and the encashment was delayed due to negligence on part of Respondent No. 2 and Respondent Nos. 3& 4 namely HDFC Bank and State Bank of India respectively.
According to the postal authorities, the OP No. 3 after receipt of the said cheque sent the same to OP No. 2 and after completion of formalities the same was sent to District Head Quarters at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur as per procedure and Tamluk Post Office sent the same to SBI, Tamluk Branch for encashment. But SBI, Tamluk failed to intimate the fate of the cheque and the cheque amount was credited in the Government Account. Therefore, there was no deficiency on part of the postal authorities as alleged by the complainant and this was in a way, confirmed by the Ld. Forum below through its impugned judgement. The Appellants/Postal authorities have also stated that the Ld. Forum below erred in law by not considering the Postal Rules and also not considering the procedure of encashment of cheque(s) and accordingly, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgement being bad in law.
All the contending parties entered appearance and Appellants, Respondent No. 2 and Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed their respective BNAs.
Appellants in their BNA reiterated the fact as in the Appeal stating that at the initial stage, the complainant did not implead HDFC Bank and State Bank of India as parties to this case and subsequently the petition of complaint was amended and they were made parties. But due to some malafide intention no relief was sought for against them and the Ld. Forum below did not consider the fraudulent and suspicious activities of the said Ops. The Appellants also prayed for direction for allowing impugned judgement to be set aside and prayed for imposing cost and compensation upon HDFC Bank and State Bank of India for their negligence.
The Respondent No. 2/HDFC Bank filed its BNA wherein it was contended that the said Respondent was not aware of the cause of action registered in the present suit and as soon as it came to know, they appeared and contested the same. It was also contended that the cheque in question was sent to State Bank of India, Tamluk Branch, by the Appellants after completion of all the formalities and SBI, Tamluk Branch failed to intimate about the encashment of the cheque and the same was credited to the Government Account and from the above fact it was clear that the Respondent No. 2/HDFC Bank was in no way responsible for the delay in encashment of the cheque and thus no direction was passed by the Ld. Forum below against it. Accordingly, it prayed for expunging its name from the suit and also prayed for cost and damages from the Appellants and Respondent No. 1/Complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by it.
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4/State Bank of India in their BNA stated inter alia that the complainant was not a consumer under them as she was not holder of any account with SBI and for this reason the present case was not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act against them before any Consumer Court.
DISCUSSION :-
A. The Respondent/Complainant, Smt. Renubala Barik, instituted the complainant case before the Ld. District Forum below alleging deficiency of service on part of the Appellants/Ops namely (1) The Superintendent of Post Offices, Midnapore Division, (2) The Post Master, Judges Court Post Office, Post Office : Midnapore and (3) The Post Master General, South Bengal Region, Kolkata-700 071, relating to deposit and subsequent non-encashment of a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,70,000/- and resultant harassment and financial hardship when the complainant, a widow, underwent extreme financial hardship. Her case was that not only the cheque was not encashed in time but the Ops also failed to provide any information on the cause of delay or the whereabouts of the cheque in a clear and transparent manner even though she had moved from pillar to post under compulsion. Accordingly, she prayed for direction on encashment of the cheque with compensation, litigation cost and other reliefs as deemed fit.
By subsequent amendment petition she sought inclusion of three other parties namely HDFC Bank, Haldia Branch, SBI, Tamluk Branch and the Chief Manager, SBI, Hadia Port Branch, though she had no claim against these OPs and the amendment petition was allowed and the incorporations were made in the cause title of the complaint. The OP No. 2 namely the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Medinipur Division, contested the case by filing written version stating inter alia that the cheque was received on 20.12.07 and sent to District Head Quarters at Tamluk on 17.1.08 towards encashment through SBI, Tamluk Branch, but there was no further information inspite of reminders. Accordingly, the OP No. 2 denied any deficiency in service on their part.
The OP No. 5, State Bank of India, Tamluk Branch, entered appearance and contended inter alia that they were not the party to wrong-doing/deficiency of service on the Respondent/Complainant as they sent the cheque on 31.1.08 and later sent the clearing request to Tamluk Post Office on 7.4.09. The OP Nos. 4 & 6 in the Forum below namely HDFC Bank and SBI, Haldia Port Branch, did not appear inspite of notice. In a subsequent development after the complaint was filed it was conveyed by OP No. 2 through affidavit to the efect that the cheque amount was finally credited to the complainants account on 28.5.09.
B. As records reveal, following is the chronology of progress on the deposit and encashment of the cheque leading to this complaint and then this Appeal.
18.12.07 - A cheque for Rs. 1,70,000/- under no. 001804 dt. 29.10.07 drawn on HDFC Bank, Haldia Branch, is deposited by the Respondent/complainant for encashment in her S.B.Account at Judges Court Post Office, Paschim Medinipur.
19.12.07 - The cheque was sent by Judges Court Post Office to District Head Quarter at Tamluk in Purba Medinipur.
17.01.08 - Senior Post Master sent the cheque to Tamluk Head Post Office for encashment through SBI, Tamluk Branch.
24.01.08 - The cheque was sent to Tamluk Branch, SBI, by Tamluk Head Post Office.
30.01.08 - SBI, Tamluk Branch, sent the cheque to SBI, Hadia Port Branch.
02.02.08 - The cheque was sent by SBI, Haldia Port Branch to HDFC Bank, Haldia Branch and the cheque was encashed on this date.
28.05.09 - The cheque amount was credited in S.B. Account of the Complainant/Respondent.
From the foregoing, it is abundantly transparent that when the cheque was encashed on 2.2.08, no encashment/payment was made to the Respondent/Complainant till filing of the case in 2008 and the Respondent/Complainant had no privity of contract with SBI, Tamluk Branch/SBI, Haldia Port Branch or HDFC, Haldia Branch, being Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively. In that view, The Appellants/Ops were solely liable for the abnormal delay of about one and a half year in encashment of the cheque of a poor and aged widow, who kept on visiting and reminding the Appellants for the cheque amount but in vain. There is no evidence that the Appellants took timely steps to pursue the matter or ascertain the progress or properly pursue information on encashment of the cheque and resultantly the Respondent/Complainant suffered grave pecuniary loss and unending harassment, admittedly without any fault of her own.
C. Having gone through the records, evidence and the Memo of Appeal with respective arguments and citations we are of the view that the Ld. Forum below very rightly adjudicated the case and correctly found that the Appellants/OPs were solely liable for serious deficiency of service on the Respondent/Complainant, as enunciated in the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are also in agreement with the Ld. Forums award on rate of interest on the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-, but there appears to be an error in computing the date of commencement of such interest which, in our view, should have been 2.2.08 or a period around that when the cheque was cleared and encashed but the proceeds of the cheque could take some time to reach the S.B.Account of the Respondent/Complainant. In our view, 1.4.08 is the date that left reasonable space for the inhouse posting of the cheque amount at the S.B.Account of the Respondent/Complainant and accordingly it is deemed fair and equitable if the interest is allowed from 1.4.08, i.e. the reasonable date by which the cheque amount should have been posted in the S.B.Account of the Respondent/Complainant till 28.5.09, i.e. the date when the said amount was actually posted.
D. Another error in the finding and conclusion of the judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below has attracted our attention when inspite of allowing interest on the cheque amount, the Ld. Forum further awarded compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-. In our view, once having awarded interest @ 10% on the cheque amount, the Ld. Forum should not have awarded compensation, as has been determined in various judgements of the Honble Superior Courts. Accordingly, we feel that ends of justice will be met if no compensation is allowed separately having allowed given interest on the cheque amount considered as adequate. But award of litigation cost for Rs. 5,000/- is deemed fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, which we feel should be kept unaltered.
O R D E R The Appeal is allowed in part on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement is modified to the extent that the OP No. 2/Appellant No. 1 is directed to pay interest on Rs. 1,70,000/- (credited in the S.B.A/c of the complainant on 28.5.09) @ 10% (ten per cent) per annum from 01.04.2008 till 28.05.2009 with cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) within seven days of communication of this order, failing which they are liable to pay further interest @ 12% (twelve per cent) per annum for the period of default.
There will be no separate award for compensation while all other portions of the impugned judgement remain intact.
MEMBER MEMBER