State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bhikari Charan Sahoo vs The Branch Manager, Nayagarh Dist. ... on 8 July, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA,
CUTTACK
First Appeal No 498/2017
(From an order dt.15.09.2017 passed by the Learned Dist.Forum,
Nayagarh in C.C. case No 22 of 2007)
Bhikari Charan Sahoo,
S/O- Late Gopinatha Sahoo,
At- Bijayanagar, PO- Belapadapatna,
PS- Gania, Dist -Nayagarh ---------------------------Appellant.
Vs
1) The Branch Manager , Nayagarh
District Central Cooperative Bank,
At/PO/PS- Gania, Dist- Nayagarh
2) The Secretary , Nayagarh District
Central Cooperative Bank,
At/PO/PS/Dist. - Nayagarh --------------------------Respondent.
For the Appellant - Mr R.K. Pattnaik, Adv
For the Respondent - Mr.U. N. Sahoo, Adv
_________________
P R E S E N T:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P. CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT,
AND
DR. P.K. PRUSTY, MEMBER
2
DATED THE JULY, 2022
ORDER
DR.P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER This appeal has been filed under section 15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act 1986 by one Sri Bhikari Charan Sahoo against the order dt. 15-09- 2017 of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nayagarh (in short District forum) passed in C.C case No. 22/2017.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter, the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant/ complainant had filed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC.22/2017 before the District Forum, Nayagarh alleging inter alia that the appellant/ complainant i.e Bhikari Charan Sahoo has a Saving Bank account No-00021 with the respondent/ O.P-1 i.e. Nayagarh District Central Cooperative Bank , Gania, Nayagarh since 29- 01-1996. The Complainant deposited on 07-02-2017 a Non CTS cheque bearing No. 240759 for Rs. 65,000/- dt 07-01-2017 drawn on Indian Bank, Gania Branch by one Sri Nakul Naik having an A/C in Indian -3- Bank, Belpadapatna branch. The payees name has been mentioned as Bhikari Charan Sahoo and the complainant has also signed in the deposit slip as well as on the back side of the cheque leaf as Bhikari Charan Sahoo. The cheque was presented before the OP Bank on 07-02-2017. The validity of the cheque was 3 months. On 06-04-2017 the O.P bank issued one letter to the Complainant intimating that the A/C holder in their branch is "Bhikari Sahoo" and not "Bhikari Charan Sahoo" hence the cheque is returned. The Complainant received the letter on 07-04-2017 on the last date of the validity period. Thereafter the complainant issued pleader notices to O.P Bank as O.P No.1 and Secretary of that bank as O.P No.2 demanding the claim amount as in the cheque. O.P bank vide their letter dt. 28-04-2017 denied the allegation & refused to provide the cheque amount. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District forum, Nayagarh U/S 12 of C.P act, 1986 seeking relief .O.Ps filed written version denying the allegation and their liability.
4. As per the O.P No.1 Bank, the complainant mentioned in the deposit slip to credit the amount to the SB A/C 00021. The name of the A/C holder as well as the name of the payee appeared in the cheque was different and the signature did not tally with the standard specimen signature available -4- with OP Bank. Further the copy of the Aadhar card of the A/C holder available with OP Bank indicates Bhikari Sahoo. Hence the cheque was returned to the Complainant on 06-04-2017 by Regd post with AD which was received by the Complainant on 07-04-2017. O.P No.2 mentioned in the written version regarding ignorance of such grievance of the Complainant as nothing had been placed before him other than the pleader's notice. The complaint was resisted by both O.Ps.
5. Further the complainant vide affidavit dt. 03-08-2017 submitted that he is Bhikari Charan Sahoo and that he has one SB A/c in the OP's bank bearing No.00021.
6. The District forum allowed the complaint partly and after proper hearing of the parties and going through the record, passed the following order:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx "The Complainant's case is partly allowed on congest against OP No.1 and dismissed on contest against OP No.2. The O.P No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand ) only as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- ( Rupees Two thousand ) only as cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the dues shall carry 14% interest per annum ."
7. Being aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the Complainant preferred the present appeal.
-5-
8. Heard the Learned Counsels for both the parties.
9. Learned Counsel of the appellant submitted that the learned District forum has erred in law by not going through the written version as well as other documents submitted with proper prospective. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in the case. He submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. Learned Counsel for the O.P bank vehemently opposed the submission of the counsel for the appellant and submitted that they have complied with the order of District forum.
10. Considered the submissions of Learned Counsels for respective parties & perused the DFR including the impugned order.
11. On closer scrutiny of the documents on record, it is observed that though OP Bank has submitted that there was complete disparity with signature put on the disputed cheque for an amount of Rs. 65,000/- vis-s-vis specimen signature of the complainant contained in the official record of the Bank, the O.P bank has made an error by not returning the disputed cheque immediately as per the RBI guidelines regarding cheque return policy when presented before it stating all the reasons as mentioned in their written version. -6-
12. We, therefore hasten to agree with the finding of District forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P 1 bank for not returning the disputed cheque in time following RBI guidelines, and it can not escape the liability.
13. Reliance can be made on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in State Bank of Patiala Vs Rajender Lal & others reported in IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC) that a bank on ground of deficiency in service in such like matters can be burdened with compensation but it can not be made to pay the entire amount of the cheque.
The Hon'ble National Commission in case of "Manoj Khurana Vs Rajinder Banchor & others" reported in (2007) CPJ 234(NC) has held that though there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P bank, it can be burdened with compensation but can not be made liable to pay the entire cheque amount. Further reliance can be made on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Citibank N.A Vs. Geekay Agro (P) Ltd" reported in SCC 2008 (15) page 102 where it is held that the bank may be liable for damages for not -7- returning the cheque as it amounts to deficiency in service but there can not be any liability to pay the cheque amount.
14. The above mentioned citations are applicable to the case in hand and we are of the considered view that though there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank the Appellant / Complainant is not entitled to claim the amount of cheque from the O.P bank as it can not be legally sustained. Therefore on the ground of deficiency in service, the OP bank can be ordered to pay some compensation. The learned District Forum have correctly awarded Compensation for the deficiency in service for not returning the disputed Cheque in proper time.
15. Thus relying on various judgments as discussed above & on perusal of record we fully agree with the conclusion arrived by the Learned District Forum but with modification to the extent that the compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost Rs. 2000/- be paid within 30 days from today failing which it would carry an interest @ 12% from the date of impugned order till payment made.
16. The appeal sans merit & accordingly stands dismissed. No cost.
17. DFR be sent back forthwith.
-8-
18. Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or website of this Commission to treat the same as copy supplied by this Commission.
(Dr D P Choudhury.J) President (Dr. P K Prusty) Member