State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Post Master, Tamluk Head Post Office vs Sri Sarbananda Jana on 23 April, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/146/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/08/2012 in Case No. CC/26/2009 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. The Post Master, Tamluk Head Post Office P.O. & P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 636. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Sarbananda Jana S/o Late Basanta Jana, Vill. Chandramerh, P.O. Dhalhara, P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 636. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Vill. - Abasbari, P.O. & P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 636. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Mrs. Ratna Brahmachari, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Manaranjan Maity., Advocate ORDER
Date: 23-04-2015 Sri Debasis Bhattacharya This appeal is directed against the Order dated 29-08-2012 in C.C. No. 26/2009, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purba Medinipur, whereby the instant case has been decreed in favour of the Complainant with a direction to the OP Post Office to pay compensation and litigation cost for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, respectively. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OP No. 1 thereof has preferred this appeal.
Brief facts of Complainant's case are that he deposited a cheque to the OP No. 1 on 07-02-2008, but till date the OP No. 1 have neither credited the proceeds thereof to his post office savings account nor intimated anything about the fate of the cheque. Hence, the case.
Case of the OP No. 1, on the other hand, is that after receiving the cheque from the Complainant on 07-02-2008, they deposited the same to the OP No. 2 on 15-02-2008. However, the latter did not inform anything about encashment of the concerned cheque to the former. In absence of encashment report, the proceeds of the cheque could not be credited to the SB account of the Complainant. On inquiry, they came to know that the said cheque got dishonoured and the Complainant has been informed of such fact. So, there was no question of paying any compensation to the Complainant.
Point for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned order is a justified one insofar as factual and legal aspects of the case are concerned.
Decision with reasons Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that due to negligence of the Respondent No. 2, the cheque in question could not be encashed which was subsequently dishonoured. As the Appellant was not aware of the fate of the cheque, they were not in a position to give any reply to the letter of the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent No. 1. The Ld. District Forum did not ponder over the fact that once the cheque was deposited to the bank, the Post Office got nothing to do with regard to clearance of the same. Moreover, the Respondent No. 2 did not inform the fate of the said cheque. So, it was indeed a catch-22 situation for them. The Ld. District Forum unnecessarily accorded primacy to the letter of the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent No. 1 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant tried its best, by way of making several correspondences with the Respondent No. 2. Moreover, the Respondent No. 1 was apprised of the fate of the cheque verbally when he visited the office of the Appellant. There was no intentional laches on their part, and the impugned order be set aside.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has submitted that when proceeds of the deposited cheque was not credited to his savings account with the Appellant in time, he frantically pursued the matter with the officials of the Appellant for months together. However, the Appellant did not bother to give any information as to the fate of the said cheque. Then, he wrote a letter to the Appellant on 30-12-2008, but to no avail. Thereafter, he sent a letter through his Advocate on 16-03-2009, but this time too, the Appellant did not show the bare minimum courtesy of acknowledging such letter, let alone apprise him of the fate of the cheque. Against this backdrop, finding no other alternative, he was compelled to initiate the instant complaint case. Negligence contributes from the indifferent attitude and deliberate neglect of a person and/or authority upon whom mandatory obligation is entrusted and when he intentionally fails to perform his duty. In this particular case, the Appellant has been grossly negligent to furnish timely information to the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 regarding the fate of the cheque. Had he been timely informed of the fate of the cheque, he could take proper steps for realization of the cheque amount from the drawer. The grounds taken by the Appellant in the instant appeal are not commensurate with the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, these are irrelevant and perverse to the equity and fair justice. The Ld. District Forum has rightly considered the pleadings and evidence on record of both sides and passed a reasoned and speaking order which be affirmed for the ends of justice. In his defense, Ld. Advocate has referred to three decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission in R.P. Nos. 2510/2002, 2808//2004 and 1645/2008.
Admittedly, the cheque was deposited with the Appellant by the Respondent No. 1 on 07-02-2008 and they in turn deposited the same to the Respondent No. 2 for clearance of the same on 15-02-2008, i.e., after a period of eight days. But, no explanation is assigned why it took so many days for them to deposit the cheque. This is a clear instance of deficiency in service.
Again, we find that the Appellant enquired about the fate of the cheque from the concerned bank vide its letter dated 30-01-2009, i.e., after a lapse of nearly one year since presentation of the cheque to the bank. Here too, no clarification is given as to why it took nearly a year for the Appellant to wake up.
The Appellant has not disputed the fact that it received two letters from the side of the Respondent No. 1, i.e., letters dated 30-12-2008 and 16-03-2009, the last one being sent by the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent No. 1. Courtesy demands that a consumer is accorded due importance that he deserves. Non-receipt of information from the side of the banker cannot be a justified alibi to keep an account-holder totally in the dark about the fate of a deposited cheque. When the first letter was received on 30-12-2008, they should have swung into action forthwith considering the plight of a helpless account-holder. Initiating action after one month from the date of receipt of a complaint letter does not speak high of the sense of accountability of a service provider.
Once a cheque is received from an account-holder, it is the bounden duty of the service provider to ensure that it remains on their toes till the proceeds thereof is credited to the account of the beneficiary or in case of dishonor, due information to that effect is communicated to the depositor of the cheque. Ironically, while they accused the Respondent No. 2 for being negligent in the matter of intimating the fate of the deposited cheque, they did not appreciate the fact that charity begins at home. Instead of staying aloof to the situation, the Appellant ought to collect bank reconciliation statement from the Respondent No. 2 periodically to see whether or not proceeds of all deposited cheques have been encashed.
It is claimed by the Appellant that it informed the fate of the cheque to the Respondent No. 1 verbally when he visited the post office. If we are to accept such assertion on the part of the Appellant as true, by the same reasoning, we cannot rebuff the assertion of the Respondent No. 1 that he repeatedly pursued the matter with the Appellant, but the latter deliberately neglected to give any information to him. Mere assertion does not prove anything and more so, no specific date is mentioned when did the Respondent No. 1 was apprised of such fact, if at all they did so. That apart, we find it quite intrigue what prevented them from intimating such fact in writing to the Respondent No. 1. If the Appellant was indeed not intimated anything about the fate of the cheque by the Respondent No. 2, there was no harm informing such fact to the Respondent No. 1.
Lastly, as the cheque was received by the Appellant from the Respondent No. 1, they were primarily responsible to ensure that the proceeds of the cheque got credited to the SB account of the account-holder in a time-bound manner or in case of dishonor of the cheque, handover the same to the depositor, none of which has been done by the Appellant. This clearly points out gross deficiency in service on their part. Whether Respondent No. 2 extended due cooperation to the Appellant or not, the Respondent No. 1 has got nothing to do with it. It was the sole responsibility of the Appellant to take up the matter with the Respondent No. 2 or its higher authorities firmly till the matter reached its logical conclusion.
Under any circumstances, the Appellant cannot avoid its responsibility by passing the buck on other(s) in the manner and fashion as they sought to do. The Ld. District Forum has rightly held them guilty of negligence/deficiency in service and the award given is quite logical and as such, needs no sort of intervention in this appeal.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 and ex parte against the Respondent No. 2, but without any order as to costs. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER