National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Indian Overseas Bank vs Jagbandhu Ghosh & Anr. on 1 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 150 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 06/10/2010 in Appeal No. 76/2006 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Rabindra Aveneu, P.S. English Bazar, P.O. & District Malda Malda West Bengal ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JAGBANDHU GHOSH & ANR. R/o. Sasthitala, P.O. Krishnagar, Police Station-Kotwali Malda West Bengal 2. RUNENDU KUMAR ROY, S/O. LATE SH. MONMOHAN SAHA (ROY) R/o. Of Fulbari, Police Station-English Bazar, P.O. & District Malda Malda West Bengal ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Prabir Basu, Advocate with
Mr. Sanjoy Kr. Ghosh, Advocate
Ms. Rupali S. Ghosh, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2 : NEMO
Dated : 01 Jun 2015 ORDER ORAL O R D E R
PER JUSTIC J.M. MALIK
Counsel for parties present. Arguments heard. Having lost the case before both the Fora below, the petitioner has chosen to file the present revision petition before this Commission. The complainant Shri Jagbandhu Ghosh was enjoying banking facilities with the Indian Overseas Bank (OP no. 1). He lost some signed cheques and he immediately applied for issuance of new cheque-book with a request to stop payment in respect of the lost cheques. Pursuant to that, petitioner bank issued new cheque-book in favour of the complainant, but subsequently honored one of the cheques amounting to Rs.3,65,000/- in favour of third party i.e. Sajal Das. It clearly shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the bank. When there was clear-cut direction to stop payment of the lost cheques, even then cheque was honored in favour of third party.
The counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that this is a commercial transaction. He invited my attention towards the statement of account, which shows that the complainant was having account in lakhs of rupees.
This must be borne in mind that complaint was filed in the individual name of Jagbandhu Ghosh and it was not filed by a firm or a partnership firm or a company. If it was commercial transaction, the OPs should have proved that he was running business activities and a number of persons were employed under him. Both the Fora have already come to the conclusion that the complainant was a "consumer". I, therefore, clap no value with it.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that report of the Investigating Officer (IO) clearly goes to show that the cheques were never lost. He had read the whole report. Even if it is assumed that the cheques were never lost, the bank was given a warning and it should not have allowed the third party to get it encashed. The counsel for the petitioner insists that the report of the IO should be relied upon. The said piece of evidence does not carry any evidentiary value in the eyes of law as it is not supported by any affidavit. It was the duty of the bank employees not to honour the cheques, which have reported to be lost. The bank is terribly remiss in discharge of its duty.
Counsel for petitioner further submits that bank did not receive any information regarding the missing cheques before 24.09.2004. There is no inkling in the evidence on the record.
The bank has not taken any action against Sh. Sajal Das, which further shows negligence on the part of the bank. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to answer as to why did the bank not take any action against Sh. Sajal Das. The counsel for petitioner repeatedly argued that no information was given to them before 24.09.2004 about the missing cheques. This argument is bereft of merit. The District Forum vide its order dated 07.02.2006, observed as under:
"In support of his contention, the petitioner has filed Ext. 5 of which the subject matter is about loss of cheque book bearing Nos. 061366 to 061375 C.D. 1141 of Indian Overseas Bank, Malda Branch, Malda.It appears that information was sent to O.C., English Bazar, P.S. Malda on 14.06.2003 about loss of above cheques and that the pages of the aforesaid cheques were blank.This information to English Bazar P.S. has been recorded in G.D.E. No 873 Dt.14.06.2003 and on the selfsame date the petitioner hasissued a letter to the Bank Manager, I.O.B. Malda Branch, Malda about loss of the above cheque book in details and there is reference to submission of information at English Bazar P.S.It appears that this document has been marked Ext. 6 and therein the petitioner has asked the bank to "Kindly stop payment about the above mentioned cheque."The petitioner has also prayed to issue a new cheque book through Ext. 6 and subsequently through Ext. 7, a letter dated 24.06.2003, the present petitioner has asked the Bank to issue a new cheque book and therein also he has informed the bank that the previous cheque book has already been lost which contained 10 (ten) cheques at the relevant time".
The bank has handled the situation in a very maladroit way. The revision petition is frivolous and vexatious. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, which will be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within a period of 45 days from today, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. after expiry of 45 days till its realization. Now to come up for compliance report on 04.08.2015.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER