State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Rakesh Kumar on 11 February, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 11.02.2010 First Appeal No.2009/813 (Arising out of Order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum( New Delhi) Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.646/2009) 1. State Bank of India . Appellants/OPs Vasant Kunj Branch through Mr. Udaydip Singh Bakshi A-93, Masoodpur Main Road, advocate New Delhi 2. State Bank of India . Appellants/OPs Local Head Office through Mr. Udaydip Singh Bakshi 11, Sansad Marg, advocate New Delhi Versus Sh. Rakesh Kumar . Respondent/Complainant Flat No.6055/8, through Mr. Syed Hasan Isfahani, D-6, Vasant Kunj, advocate. New Delhi CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Sh. M.L. Sahni Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi , President(ORAL)
1. Short facts of the case are that the complainant having a saving bank account No.10851360233 with the appellant -OP Bank Vasant Kunj Branch deposited two demand drafts bearing No.793152 amounting to Rs.30,000/- on 18.09.2008 and another bearing No.793242 amounting to Rs.40,000/- on 23.09.2008. The OP/appellant No.1 sent both these drafts on 23.09.2008 to its local head office at Sansad Marg, New Delhi i.e. OP/appellant No.2, for clearance. OP appellant No.2 sent advice on 03.10.2008 to appellant No.1, which was received on 04.10.2008, who credited a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the account of the complainant respondent. The complainants grouse was that the draft No.793152 was cleared after 17 days while draft bearing No.79342 was cleared after 12 days. He, therefore, sent a legal notice to the OP/bank on 29.09.2008 alleging that since both the drafts were not cleared within three days of their deposit, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank and demanded credit of Rs.70,000/- in his account and payment of Rs.25,000/- as compensation, OP/ bank did not reply, the notice.
2. The complainant, thereafter, in November 2008, filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP/appellant Bank for late crediting amount of two demand drafts Rs.70,000/- deposited by the respondent/complainant, in his account. It was alleged that in consequence thereof a cheque bearing No.09838 dated 23.09.2008 issued by him in the name of BSES was dishonoured and the BSES issued a notice in turn for taking legal action for the dishonouring to the cheque of the complainant. He further alleged that insurance policy of the complainant also lapsed as the premium could not be debited to his account through Electronic Clearing System, on time. The complainant also alleged that he had to pay monthly rent to his landlord, which he could not pay. The complainant therefore prayed against the OP for paying him a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- in all, as compensation for all the damage caused to him for loss of reputation, mental agony etc. etc..
3. The OPs appellant bank and filed the written statement, admitting that the clearance was to be made within three days of deposit of the Bank drafts, which could not done due to workload but opposed the amount of claim pleading that complainant as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, is entitled to get the interest @5% for the delay in crediting the proceeds of the subject instruments i.e. the demand drafts, which the OP was prepared to pay.
4. The District Forum after considering the evidence of both the parties ordered the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs to the complainant. That is what brings the OPs appellants Bank here in appeal here.
5. We have heard Sh. Udaydip Singh Bakshi, Counsel for the OPs/appellants and Sh. Syed Hasan Isfahani, counsel for the complainant/respondent.
6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the compensation can be and should be granted in view of the guidelines prescribed in this behalf by the Reserve Bank of India and the loss caused to complainant has to be made good on well recognized legal principles governing quantification of damages or compensation on proof of actual loss suffered. The counsel for the appellants in support of his contention has referred to a decision of the National Commission in Bank of Baroda Vs Arvind Modern Dal & Rice Mill I (1996) CPJ 271 (NC).
7. As against this it is contended on behalf of the complainant/respondent that dishonouring of the cheque rendered him liable for the criminal prosecution under Negotiable Instruments Act 1938 and that his insurance policy lapsed because the amount of premium could not be debited to his account through E.C.S. as the amount of demand drafts was not credited in his account by the OPs/appellants within the prescribed time limit.
8. Considering the facts of the case in its entirety and adhering what has been said by the National Commission in case Supra, we find that the present is a case of un-liquidated damages, which cannot be quantified on the basis of actual loss suffered by the complainant/respondent. Respondents contention that due to late crediting of the amount of two bank drafts deposited by him has caused him harm not only in financial terms but also lowered him in estimation of public authorities like BSES and the Insurance Company, has sufficient force. Appellants/OPs have admitted lapse on their part in late crediting the amount of the bank drafts which tantamounts to deficiency in service. We, therefore, find no fault with the impugned order. However, we feel that the amount of compensation and costs of litigation awarded by the learned District Forum, is on the higher side, which requires some reduction. Accordingly, partly allowing the appeal, in the facts and circumstances of the case we modify the order to the extent that appellants/OPs shall pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost, within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum till realization.
9. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any deposited by the appellant be released in favour of the appellant subject to completing requisite formalities.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
Announced on 11th day of February 2010.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member Tri