State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nice National Institute Of Computer ... vs 1. Branch Manager, Dena Bank, ... on 16 September, 2010
C
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ORISSA: CUTTACK
C.D.
CASE NO. 91 OF 2001
NICE National Institute of Computer Education
Pvt.Limited through its Regional Co-Ordinator
Sri Upagupt Mohanty, Nayasarak ( 2nd
Floor),
Cuttack 753 002, Orisa.
Complainant
-
Versus
1.
Branch Manager,
Dena Bank, Nayasarak,
Cuttack 753 002, Orissa.
2.
Chairman & Managing Director,
Dena Bank, Makers Towers
E,
Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400 005.
.
Opposite parties.
For the
complainant : Mr M.Agarwal, Authorized Agent.
For the opposite parties: :
M/s D.N.Mishra & Associates.
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SAMANTARAY,
PRESIDENT,
AND
SHRIMATI SMARITA
MOHANTY, MEMBER
O R D E R
Smt.Smarita Mohanty, Member.
D ATE : THE 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 This complaint is filed by the complainant against the O.Ps. Bank alleging deficiency in service.
Complainant being a registered company under Companies Act of 1956 having its office at Nayasarak, Cuttack regularly transacts with the O.Ps. It is alleged that a cheque bearing no. 9823378 dt. 13.10.1999 of Rs. 10,000/- drawn on O.P. Bank was issued to M/s. Tibrewal Chand & Co., the auditors of the company. The said cheque was dishonoured by O.P. No.1 due to insufficient fund. Thereafter complainant complained before O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 14.10.1999 with regard to dishonour of the said cheque. Again on 16.10.1999 complainant wrote another letter to O.P.No.1 & 2 stating that balance in the companys account was Rs.11,555.89p and not Rs.6,530.89p as stated by the Branch Manager of O.P. No.1. On 21.10.1999 O.P. No.1 intimated complainant in writing that the cheque was rightly returned by the Bank due to insufficient funds. On 22.10.1999 complainant obtained a detailed statement of transactions from O.P. No.1 and rectified the mistake committed by the Bank. Two debit entries were made on 26.08.1999 in the Current Account No. 1295 of the complainant company (Rs.5000/- &Rs.25/-). On 15.11.1999 O.P.-Bank expressed regret over the matter. This negligent act of O.P.-Bank has caused mental agony and harassment. Complainant therefore filed this dispute before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps to refund the said amount of Rs.5025/- @ 18% interest from 26.08.1999 till the date of actual payment.
O.Ps. resisted the complaint and contested the claim denying the allegations made by complainant. It is submitted that complainant was holding two current accounts bearing nos. 1295 and 1243 under O.P.-Bank. A cheque amounting to Rs.5,000/- was deposited by the complainant in account no. 1243 on 25.08.1999. Later the said cheque for Rs.5,000/- deposited by the complainant was returned back with endorsement of insufficient fund as the debit entry in account no. 1243 was by mistake made in the account no. 1295.As a result, the account no. 1243 got increased by Rs.5,000/- whereas there was deduction of Rs. 5,025/- from the account no. 1295. The said entries were made in the month of August, 1999 and thereafter, complainant had made nearly 58 transactions under the said account before issuing a cheque for Rs.10,000/- on 13.10.1999 to M/s Tibrewal Chand & Co. The minimum balance in the said account was 8,555.99 on 30.10.1999. Hence, the aforesaid cheque of Rs.10,000/- dated 13.10.1999 was returned back due to insufficiency of funds. Later when complainant had deposited a cheque for Rs.5,000/-, an instant credit was made to account no. 1243. A debit entry was made and Rs.25/- was deducted towards cheque clearing charges from account no. 1295. After rectification of their mistake, O.P. no. 1 sent a letter of regret to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service by the O.Ps. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is evident from the reference letter no. AKM/786/99 dt. 15.11.1999 of O.P.-Bank that a cheque for Rs.5000/- pertaining to complainants account was erroneously debited. O.P.-Bank regretted for such an erroneous act and for the inconvenience caused to complainant. Since the Bank has already realized the mistake and has expressed sincere regrets, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on its part In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this complaint. Dismissed. No order as to costs.
.
( Smarita Mohanty) Member (Justice A.K.Samantaray) President SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack September 16, 2010/bkm