State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B.M., State Bank Of India, Koderma Bazar ... vs Hans Raj & Another on 2 May, 2008
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI FA no. 761 of 2007 Against judgement dated 22.11.2007, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koderma, in Consumer Complaint no. 22 of 2007. B.M., State Bank of India, Koderma Bazar Branch - Appellant .vs. Hans Raj & another - Respondents For Appellant : M/s Rajesh Kumar & M.K. Sinha, Advocates. For Respondent no.1 : None. For Respondent no.2 : None. Present: Mr. Justice Gurusharan Sharma- President Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy- Member
And Mr. Satyendra Kumar Gupta-Member Judgment Justice Sharma: The State Bank of India, Koderma Bazar Branch has filed this appeal against the impugned judgement dated 22.11.2007, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koderma, in Consumer Complaint no. 22 of 2007, whereby direction has been given to pay the cheque amount of Rs.77,866.00 together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of issuance of cheque, i.e. 27.3.2006 till payment, besides Rs.10,000.00 as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs.2,000.00 as litigation cost to the complainant.
2. The complainant-respondent no.1 is a Contractor. The Government Building Department issued cheque bearing no. 758187 dated 27.3.2006, for Rs.77,866.00 in his name, which ought to have been cashed till 31.3.2006. On 29.3.2006 the complainant deposited the said cheque in his SB A/c no. 17160 in the United Bank of India, Jhumaritilaiya Branch. On the same day the United Bank of India send the cheque by Courier to the S.B.I., Koderma Bazar Branch for encashment, which was duly received there on 30.3.2006 but due to negligence it was not collected and remitted within 31.3.2006, which was the last date of the Financial Year.
3. On 26.6.2006 the complainant filed Consumer Complaint no.22 of 2007 under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for direction to the SBI, Koderma Bazar Branch to make payment of Rs.77,866.00 as well as Rs. One lac on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,000.00 towards litigation cost.
Contd.2 2
4. The State Bank of India contested the complaint, interalia on the ground that complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the 1986 Act. It was admitted that cheque in question was received in SBI in the second half of 30.3.2004 and 31.3.2004 was the last day of Financial Year and due to that there was heavy rush in the Bank for payment of Government bills, cheques etc. Hence, amount of the said cheque could not be remitted. Thereafter, 1.4.2004 was closing day and 2.4.2004 was Sunday and thereafter staff of SBI were on strike till 9.4.2006. Hence, the cheque in question was returned to the United Bank of India, Jhumaritilaiya on 20.4.2006.
5. Challenging the impugned judgement, Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant ought to have submitted the Government cheque dated 27.3.2004 directly to the State Bank of India, Koderma Bazar Branch in view of closure of financial year just within four days, but he complicated the matter by depositing the same in his account in United Bank of India for bearing collected from SBI. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency of service on the part of SBI and the complainants stand that inspite of repeated assurance the SBI failed get the said cheque revalidated was not in accordance with the procedure. It was not the duty of SBI to get the cheque in question re-validated by the competent authority rather it was for him to collect the said cheque from his banker (United Bank of India) for being revalidated by Building Department or for getting a fresh / new cheque issued for the said amount.
6. However, it is admitted by the appellant-bank that all the staff of SBI were busy in payment of Government bills, cheques etc. and nobody had any occasion to open the DAk and hence amount of said cheque could not be remitted. The cheque could not be cleared within time due to unavoidable circumstances over which according to them the bank had no control.
7. On 7.12.2006 the Bank wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, Buildings stating therein that the cheque in question could not be encashed in its validity period and requested him to arrange for payment of the involved amount by issuing a new cheque so that payment be made to the complainant. Again on 18.2.2008 a reminder was sent by the Bank giving reference to the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the District Forum and the instant appeal filed by it and requested to deliver a new cheque to SB I for being presented before the appellate Court.
8. The Executive Engineer on 19.2.2008 wrote to the Special Secretary, Buildings Department mentioning therein that due to fault of the State Bank of India the cheque dated 27.3.2004 could not be credited in the contractors bank account and requested for granting additional fund for Rs.77,866.00 and on banks request for issuing a fresh cheque.
Contd.3 3
9. Accordingly on completion of necessary formalities, the Executive Engineer concerned issued a fresh A/c Payee cheque no.859190 dated 19.3.2008 for Rs.77,866.00 in complainants name to the appellant-SBI, which was also valid only upto 31.3.2008. Hence, the appellant bank cashed the amount of said cheque and converted into the draft of Rs.77,866.00, bearing Bank Draft no. 422492 dated 20.3.2008. The said Bank draft was filed in Court alongwith a supplementary affidavit by the appellant on 26.3.2008, but Counsel for the complainant-respondent no.1 was not present, hence the appeal was adjourned for further hearing on 17.4.2008. Again on 17.4.2008 also Mr. Satyanarayan Prasad, Counsel for the respondent no.1 was absent. In such situation, by way of last indulgence, we adjourned the appeal for further hearing on 2.5.2008 i.e. today. Counsel for the respondent no.1 is not present and he is unrepresented.
10. In the aforesaid circumstance, we dispose of the appeal on the basis of materials on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold the State Bank of India was deficient in service in leaving the cheque in question unattended and not clearing the amount to be credited in the complainants bank account. We do not appreciate the plea of SBI that the complainant himself credited the problem by not depositing the cheque directly to them. Even if the complainant had deposited the cheque with his banker for being collected from SBI, the cheque had reached SBI well within and there was sufficient time to SBI to do the needful but it was negligently left unattended.
11. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the direction of the District Forum that a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation and Rs.2,000.00 as litigation cost are payable to complainant, rather we affirm the said direction in this appeal.
12. Since the SBI took steps and approached the Buildings Department and obtained a fresh cheque for the said amount issued in the name of the complainant and has produced before us the Bank Draft as mentioned above, we set aside part of the impugned judgement whereby the appellant-bank was directed to pay the cheque amount with interest @ 9 % per annum thereon.
13. Since the Counsel for respondentno.1 left attending the appeal, the Bank Draft no.422492 dated 20.3.2008 for Rs.77,866.00 filed before us on 26.3.2008 is returned to the appellants Counsel to be sent to the complainant-respondent no.1 directly by Registered Post on his present address.
14. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with aforesaid direction and modification in the impugned judgement. No cost.
The 2nd May, 2008.
Ranchi.
Member Member President