State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager,Union Bank Of India vs Mihir Kumar Panda & Another on 2 May, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.410 OF 2003 From an order dated 18.12.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhadrak in C.D. Case No.101 of 2001 Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Bhadrak Branch, At- Rajghat, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bhadrak. Appellant. -Versus- 1. Mihir Kumar Panda, S/o. Gouranga Chandra Panda, Village/P.O- Bramhanigaon, P.S- Basudevpur, Dist- Bhadrak. 2. The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, At/P.O- Kacheri Bazar, P.S/Dist- Bhadrak. Respondents. For the Appellant : M/s. S.K. Dey & Assoc. For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. A. Bhoi & Assoc. For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. A.C. Deo. P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE R.K. PATRA, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. O R D E R
DATE: - 02ND MAY, 2007.
The order of the District Forum directing the appellant to pay to the respondent no.1 a sum of rupees 13,159/- towards the cheque amount with interest at the rate of 14 percent per annum and to pay him rupees 500/- as costs is under challenge in this appeal.
2. The respondent no.1 filed the complaint on the following allegations;
His case is that he is a contractor by profession.
He had taken up construction of road work from Icchapur to Basudevpur under the M.F.D.R. Towards his remuneration he received a part bill amounting to rupees 13,159/- from the Executive Engineer respondent no.2 by way of cheque which he deposited at the appellants bank for collection on 30.03.2001. The officials of the appellant - bank assured him that the amount would be duly collected but the same was not done.
He accordingly filed the complaint claiming compensation and for recovery of the amount covered under the cheque.
3. The appellant in its written version admitted that the respondent no.1 deposited with it cheque no.T730516 dated 28.03.2001 on 30.03.2001 drawn on State Bank of India. The cheque was presented after 3.00 p.m. Therefore, it could not be sent to the clearing house on that day. The next day i.e. 31.03.2001 was non-clearing day and 01.04.2001 was Sunday. 2nd April, 2001 was bank closing day. On 3rd April the cheque was duly sent for clearing but it was dishonoured with the remark Out of Date. After some days the respondent no.1 appeared at the bank and enquired about the cheque. He was explained about the position and it was suggested to him to get the cheque revalidated which the concerned Executive Engineer could do as a matter of course. He was requested to take back the cheque. He left the bank saying that he would enquire from the Executive Engineer and do the needful. The appellant contacted the Executive Engineer who was of the same opinion. The respondent no.1 instead of getting the cheque revalidated has filed the complaint without any justification.
4. The District Forum by the impugned order held that there was negligence on the part of the appellant in collecting the cheque amount. Before going into the merit of the case it is relevant to note as to what was the relief claimed by the respondent no.1 in his complaint. In his complaint, his prayer is as follows :-
Hence it is prayed your Honour will be kind and please enough to admit the petition and to pass an order for the early collection of the cheque bearing no.T-730516 amounting Rs.13,159/- from the State Bank of India, Bhadrak and to pay the compensation of loss and physical and mental agony as per below schedule, for which the petitioner is in duty bound shall ever pray.
On close reading of the entire complaint it would appear that the prayer is directed against the Executive Engineer for issue of a fresh cheque. It is the specific case of the appellant that the cheque was presented after 3.00 p.m. on 30.03.2001 on account of which it could not be sent to the clearing house on that day. We do not find any reason as to why the appellant bank would take a false stand. They would not be gained in any means in withholding the cheque. In the following 3 days the cheque could not be sent because of non-clearing day, public holiday and bank closing day. On 3rd April the cheque was duly sent for clearing but it was dishonoured with a remark Out of Date. The respondent no.1 in these circumstances could have taken back that cheque from the appellant and got it revalidated. This should have solved the problem but he did not do so for the reasons best known to him. The complaint seems to have been filed with some ulterior motive. The respondent no.1 was no way prejudiced as he had the option to get the cheque revalidated from the Executive Engineer.
He might have also got it done but did not disclose it in course of hearing of the complaint.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, no fault can be found with the appellant. The impugned order is hereby set-aside. The complaint filed by the respondent no.1 stands dismissed. This appeal is allowed.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.