State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Ashirbad Pattanayak vs Branch Manager, Ubi on 14 August, 2013
DRAFT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO.FA/524/2011 (Arising out of order dated 29/07/11 in Case No.40/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur) DATE OF FILING:23/12/11 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:14/08/13 APPELLANT : Sri Ashirbad Pattanayak S/o-Indu Bhusan Pattanayak Village-Durgachak, Uttarpally P.O. & P.S. Durgachak District-Purba Medinipur RESPONDENT : Branch Manager United Bank of India Chiranjibpur P.O. Haldia Oil Refinery P.S. Haldia District-Purba Medinipur BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Sri S. Coari HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE APPELLANT : Sk. Rejaul Alam Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Debasis Bhandari Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Purba Medinipur in complaint case no.40 of 2010 allowing the complaint case and directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of judgment, in default the amount will carry interest @ 8% p.a. till realization.
The complainant is the appellant herein.
The case of the complainant/appellant, in short is that the complainant has a savings bank account with the OP and he deposited a cheque amounting to Rs.2,65,000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, Dholmari Branch issued by one Susanta Kumar Mal. The complainant went to the office of the OP on several occasions to know about the credit of the amount with his account, but on 11/03/10 the OP bank informed the complainant that the said cheque was sent to Contai Branch for collection. It was further stated therein the Contai Branch of Allahabad Bank had misplaced the cheque. The OP also informed the complainant that it was learnt that before issuance of the cheque on 11/01/10 the account of the drawer was closed on 22/08/08. The OP bank did not return the cheque to the complainant and, as such, the complainant could not file any case against the drawer of the cheque u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. For the said reasons, the complainant filed the case for realization of the cheque amount of Rs.2,65,000/-, compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the cheque was misplaced. It is contended that the Learned District Forum did not pass any order for the refund of the cheque amount and, as such, the complainant/appellant could not file any case u/s 138 of N.I. Act against the drawer.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the cheque was misplaced, but the complainant/appellant is not entitled to get the refund of the cheque amount in view of the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No.49 of 2008 decided on 29/02/12.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. Admittedly, the complainant/appellant deposited the cheque amounting to Rs.2,65,000/- dated 11/01/10 with the OP. It is also an admitted fact that the OP had sent it to Contai Branch of Allahabad Bank for collection. It is the contention of the respondent/OP that from Contai Branch the cheque was misplaced. It has been averred in Para-12 of the W.V. that the OP had sent the cheque for collection through UBI, Contai Branch on 13/01/10, but unfortunately the said cheque was misplaced. It is the further case of the OP/respondent as made in Para-13 of the W.V. that the complainant knew beforehand that the account holder Susanta Kumar Mal, that is, the drawer of the cheque closed his account on 22/08/08, long before issuing the cheque. It is, therefore, an admitted fact that the cheque was misplaced.
The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that the Learned District Forum did not pass any order for the refund of the cheque amount. On this point the Learned Counsel for the respondent herein has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in case no.RP 4201 of 2007 decided on 29/02/12. It has been held therein as follows:
..There are a number of judgments of this Commission including in Canara Bank Vs. Sudhir Ahuja I(2007) CPJ 1(NC) wherein this Commission has held that on grounds of deficiency in service, the bank can be ordered to pay the compensation and not the entire amount of the cheque. Following this precedent and since there was clear a deficiency in service on the part of Petitioner No.2, we are of the view that Rs.30,000/- is adequate and equitable compensation The contention of the appellant is that as the cheque was not returned by the OP/respondent, no action could be taken u/s 138 of the N.I. Act against the drawer of the cheque. It is further contended that the Learned District Forum ought to have passed an order for the refund of the cheque amount. On perusal of the aforesaid decision as referred to by the Learned Counsel for the respondent, we find that the facts of the said case are similar to those of the instant one. The loss of the cheque is certainly deficiency in service, but would not justify the refund of the cheque amount as held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid case. We are of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Learned District Forum.
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment is affirmed. We make no order as to costs.
MEMBER(SC) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT