State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India vs Mohammad Altaf Mohammad Sharif on 9 February, 2016
1 F.A..No.:680/2014
Date of filing :17.10.2014
Date of order :09.02.2016
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :680 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 118 OF 2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PARBHANI.
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Purna Branch,
Tq.Purna, Dist.Parbhani. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
Mohammad Altaf S/o Mohammad Sharif,
R/o Vijaynagar, Purna,
Tq.Purna, Dist.Parbhani. ...RESPONDENT.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.P.B.Paithankar for appellant, Adv.Mr.Shoaib Farhan Mahtab Khan for respondent.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 9th February 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2014 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum, Parbhani partly allowing complainant's claim in consumer complaint No.118/2012 directing appellant/opponent bank to pay to the complainant amount of cheque of Rs.75,000/- and further compensation Rs.3000/- towards mental agony etc. (For the sake of brevity appellant State Bank of India is herein after referred as opponent bank and respondent Mr.Mohammad Altaf as the complainant) 2 F.A..No.:680/2014
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant Mohd.Altaf is a consumer of opponent bank having saving account No.0011557460178. On 13.9.2010 complainant deposited with the opponent bank cheque of Rs.75,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Adilabad for encashment. On receipt of cheque, opponent bank sent the cheque to Syndicate Bank for clearance. But despite repeated oral enquiry by the complainant opponent bank did not credit the amount of cheque in his account. Even no response is given to his enquiry by the opponent bank. However, on 16.1.2012 when complainant withdrawn the some amount from his account and made enquiry with the opponent bank he came to know that on 17.2.2011 amount of cheque of Rs.75,000/- was shown to be credited in his account and subsequently the same amount came to be debited. Thereafter on enquiry with the opponent bank he was informed by letter dated 16.1.2012 that the cheque was dishonoured but it is lost etc. It is submitted that as no intimation about dishonouring cheque was received to the complainant he could not take any action against the person who issued the cheque and thereby sustained loss. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank, complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming amount of cheque with interest and also compensation Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony.
3. In response to the complaint notice, opponent bank appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint by its written version contending inter alia that on receipt of the cheque, amount of cheque was credited in the account of complainant as uncleared balance and subsequently when intimation was received about bouncing cheque same amount came to be debited. It is submitted that after sending the cheque to Syndicate Bank, opponent bank has repeatedly made follow up and has not committed any deficiency in service. It is further submitted that immediately after receiving intimation about 3 F.A..No.:680/2014 bouncing the cheque, the complainant was informed by letter dated 16.1.2012 but complainant has falsely alleged that opponent bank has committed deficiency in service etc. It has denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that opponent bank has committed deficiency in service by not informing the complainant immediately after when cheque was returned from Syndicate Bank with intimation as insufficient balance etc. It is also observed that due to negligence on the part of opponent bank the cheque is lost and therefore complainant could not take any action against the person who issued cheque. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
5. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, opponent bank came to this Commission in appeal.
6. We heard learned counsel for both side and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version, evidence affidavits and copies of other documents.
7. Almost all the facts except the contention of complainant that opponent bank has committed deficiency in service and is liable to pay amount of cheque and also compensation are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether appellant bank is liable to pay amount of cheque to the complainant and further whether opponent bank has committed deficiency in service and liable to pay compensation to the complainant as observed by District Consumer Forum or not?
4 F.A..No.:680/20148. At the outset we may point it out here that though cheque in question was lost due to negligence on the part of opponent bank, it cannot be held liable to pay amount of cheque. It is well settled law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of City Bank(NA) -vs- Geekay Agro Company(P) SD and another 2008(CT) 561(SC) which is followed by Hon'ble National Commission in case of State Bank of India, Patiyala -Vs- Rajendralal and another IV(2003) CPJ 53(NC). But it appears from the impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum has committed error in holding that opponent bank is liable to pay amount of cheque from the opponent bank. Therefore the same order is being erroneous, cannot be sustained.
9. As far as contention of complainant that opponent bank committed deficiency in service by not informing him about bouncing and returning cheque is concerned, it is submitted by Mr.Paithankar learned counsel for the opponent bank that immediately after receiving information from drawee bank about bouncing cheque, the complainant was informed. But complainant has falsely alleged that opponent bank committed deficiency in service etc. He has tried to support his submission by relying on the copy of letter dated 16.1.2012 issued by opponent bank to the complainant informing that drawee bank reported that said cheque is returned unpaid and was sent by courier. This letter is not disputed by the complainant. But we find little force in the submission of Mr.Paithankar learned counsel for the opponent bank. Firstly, because copy of letter dated 16.1.2012 does not reflect as to when opponent bank received information from the drawee bank. It also does not reflect as to whether cheque was received back or lost in transit. It merely reflects that after sending the cheque to drawee bank for clearance follow up was made etc. But no record to that effect is produced on record. But when according to complainant he repeatedly made enquiry with the opponent bank why response was not given by the opponent bank till 16.1.2012 when undisputedly cheque was sent to the drawee bank on 17.2.2011. Not 5 F.A..No.:680/2014 only this but it reflects from the record that opponent bank issued letter dated 16.1.2012 after when complainant personally visited the bank and made enquiry about his cheque. Thus it is obvious from the undisputed fact that opponent bank committed deficiency in service by not informing the complainant in time about returning unpaid cheque and therefore complainant could not take action against the person from whom he had received the cheque and thereby sustained loss. Therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly observed. However, though District Consumer Forum awarded compensation Rs.3000/- only towards mental agony, complainant has not filed any appeal claiming enhancement of compensation. Therefore complainant is entitled to get compensation only Rs.3000/- towards mental agony as quantified by the Forum.
9. For the foregoing reasons appeal deserves to be partly allowed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is partly allowed and impugned order directing
opponent bank to pay to the complainant amount of cheque Rs.75,000/- is set aside.
2. Rest of the impugned order directing opponent bank to pay to the complainant compensation Rs.3000/- is confirmed.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane