State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Kalim Ansari vs Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Others on 7 December, 2012
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/295/2011 (Arisen out of Order No. 11 dt. 30.09.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 24/2010 of CDRF, Uttar Dinajpur at Raigunj) DATE OF FILING : 29.01.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 07.12.2012 APPELLANT Mr. Kalim Ansari S/o Samad Residing at Bhatol, P.O. Bhatol Hat, P.S. Raigunj, Uttar Dinajpur Pin-733 134. RESPONDENTS 1. Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. CC 31, Kalkaji Branch New Delhi-110 019. 2. Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. Malda Branch P.O. & Dist. Malda West Bengal. 3. Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Raigunj Branch Mohanbati Dist. Uttar Dinajpur West Bengal. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MR. D.BHATTACHARYA FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Ritobroto Banerjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Archan Dutt, Mr. Ayan Kr. Boral, Mr. Subhodeep Basu, Ld. Advocates : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the Order No. 11 dt. 30.09.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raigunj in Consumer Complaint No. 24/2010, wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the OP/HDFC Bank.
The case of the Complainant/Appellant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant acted as a contractor of a form named and styled as M/s. India Offset Printer having its office at X-36, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi.
According to the Complainant, after receiving payments by cheque from the aforesaid company the complainant deposited the cheques (2 in number) for Rs. 6,08,038/- each with the OP/Bank and subsequently the complainant withdrew Rs. 1,00,000/- from the aforesaid bank and Rs. 15,000/- on two occasions by using ATM facility. It was the further case of the complainant that on 1.2.10 the complainant deposited a cheque bearing no. 331465 for Rs. 50,000/- dt. 1.12.10 with the OP/Bank, but the same could not be encashed as the same was returned by the OP/Bank with the remark, No Debit. According to the Complainant, this act on the part of the OP/Bank tantamounted to deficiency in service and, therefore, the present petition of complaint was filed for proper redressal.
The OP/Bank contested the case by filing a written objection thereby denying and disputing all the material averments as mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that though two cheques were deposited by the complainant, but the OP/Bank had to stop payment as in the meantime the Bank had received a written intimation from the Okhla Police Station, New Delhi to the effect that both the cheques deposited by the complainant were stolen. As the intimation contained an allegation that the farm under which the complainant worked had brought forward a complaint against the complainant thereby alleging misuse of the cheques at the instance of the complainant.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that though from the materials on record it has come to light that the complainant received the cheques in question from the farm under which he worked and they put forward a complaint to police thereby alleging to the effect that the complainant had misused the cheques in question, but the complainant had not impleaded the farm in question for the purpose of effecting a fair and judicious adjudication of the real controversy. Ld. District Forum also observed that when the Bank received the intimation from the police station about alleged misuse of the cheques at the instance of the complainant, there was no alternative left before the Bank but to stop payment and as such, there was no deficiency at the instance of the Bank and accordingly, dismissed the petition of complaint.
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 Complainant/Appellant that Ld. District Forum has utterly failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision, which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Ld. District Forum has heavily relied upon a mere intimation alleged to have been received by the Bank from the police station of Delhi and without enquiring into the genuineness of the allegation set forth in the said intimation has arbitrarily and without assigning any cogent and reliable reasons dismissed the case of the complainant and that on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
While elaborating on this point it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that without prior guideline and/or instruction from Reserve Bank of India a Bank is not permitted to stop payment and/or refuse handling of the account of the bonafide customer and at least an order by a competent court was necessary for freezing the account of the complainant. The Bank having not done so there is certainly gross negligence on the part of the OP/Bank. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted before us that Ld. District Forum having ignored the vital factors that surround the real controversy between the parties has arrived at a wrong and improper decision, which is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submission 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 Appellant has come forward with a case to the effect that after obtaining two cheques from a Delhi-based company under which the complainant worked as a contractor has deposited the same with the OP/Bank, but on a flimsy ground namely an intimation from a police station at Delhi with the allegation that the complainant has misused the cheques in question, the Bank has refused the complainant to operate the account lying with the OP/Bank, which tantamounted to deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint. The Bank, on the other hand, has come forward with a case to the effect that as the Bank has received a written intimation from a police station about the mis-handling of the cheques in question at the instance of the complainant, the Bank had no other alternative but to freeze the account of the complainant, for which the Bank cannot be held deficient in service under any circumstances and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the case.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that Ld. District Forum was quite justified in upholding that the construction company named and styled as M/s. India Offset Printer, under which the complainant worked and/or from which the complainant obtained cheques in question, ought to have been made a party for proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties and on this score alone the Consumer Complaint was liable to be dismissed. However, we are also not unmindful of the fact that the Bank ought to have been more diligent in producing some more materials in support of its case to the effect about the receipt of a written intimation from a police station of Delhi by entering into correspondences with the said police station. 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.
However, in this regard, we also find that the Ld. District Forum has granted cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the OP/HDFC Bank, which, in our opinion, was not at all required as there was no deficiency found by the Ld. District Forum against the OP/Bank. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER