State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of Bikanir & Jaipur vs Mr. Sailesh Jain on 18 January, 2013
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/88/2011 (Arisen out of Order dt. 11.1.11 of DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No. 1436 of 2009) DATE OF FILING : 22.02.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 18.01.2013 APPELLANT State Bank of Bikanir & Jaipur Having its office at 14, Netaji Subhas Road Under Police Station Hare Street Kolkata-700 001. RESPONDENT Mr. Sailesh Jain S/o Nirmal Kumar Jain 68, Nalini Sett Road Kolkata-700 007. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Gouranga Gupta Roy, Souvik Das, Ld. Advocates FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. D.Roy, Ms. Archana Shaw Chowdhury, Ld. Advocates. : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 11.1.11 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C. No. 1436 of 2009, wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint ex parte with a direction upon the OP/Bank to credit the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant by Rs. 25,599/- along with interest at the banking rate from 2.11.2007 till date along with a further direction upon the OP/Bank to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service.
The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant had a Savings Bank account facility bearing No. 51044062058 with the OP/Bank. On 2.11.07 the complainant deposited with the OP/Bank a Cheque bearing No. 948639 dt. 1.11.2007 for a sum of Rs. 25,599/- with a request to credit the Savings Bank account of the complainant. The aforesaid amount was not credited with the Savings Bank account of the complainant by the OP/Bank in spite of repeated requests and demands and hence, the petition of complaint.
The OP was duly summoned, but did not appear and contest the case before the Ld. District Forum in spite of service of notice.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit and connected and related papers in support of his case and the Ld. District Forum after being satisfied that there was deficiency in service at the instance of the Bank in respect of deposit of a cheque by the complainant with a request to credit his Savings Bank account, allowed the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant, as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Bank that from the record maintained by the Bank it has become evident that the aforesaid cheque was encashed through Bank of India, DOB Branch, Kolkata, by some miscreants.
According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, there was no deficiency in service at the instance of the Bank and the Ld. District Forum was not justified in upholding the case of the complainant thereby designating the Appellant to be deficient in service and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case, the complainant has come forward with a case to the effect that in spite of complainants submitting a cheque with the OP/Bank for crediting the same to the Savings Bank account of the complainant, the same was never credited. According to the complainant, the Bank has come up with a fictitious case that some miscreants have encashed the cheque by adopting unfair means, which is not at all tenable, and that non-crediting of the amount of the cheque with complainants account at the instance of the OP/Bank, tantamounted to deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint. Before the Ld. District Forum the Bank did not contest the same in spite of service of notice and at this appeal stage it has come up with the case that the cheque in question having been encashed by some miscreants things were beyond the control of the Bank, for which the Bank should not be held deficient in service. We have duly considered this aspect of the case and after a careful perusal of the impugned judgement we find that the Ld. District Forum has really traversed the cases of respective party reasonably well and in the process, has analysed the nitty-gritty of the case and has arrived at a just and proper finding.
When, admittedly, there is no dispute about the complainants submitting a cheque with the OP/Bank for its due encashment and crediting to his Savings Bank account, the plea taken by the Bank at this appeal stage is not at all tenable and in our opinion, the Bank is very much deficient in handling the cheque so deposited by the complainant.
Having considered the present Appeal in the light of above discussions we find no merit in the present Appeal, which, in our opinion, should be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
The impugned judgement stands confirmed.
MEMBER PRESIDENT