ANIL KUMAR CHOPRA vs State Bank of India

THE present appeal arises out of the order of the District Forum No. 1, dated 14.7.1994, dismissing the complaint of the appellant/complainant, in Complaint Case No. 1719/93 entitled as Shri Anil Kumar Chopra v. State Bank of India & Ors. THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the appellant/complainant is a S.B.I. credit card holder and a credit card cheque book was issued to him. THE credit card cheques, as per the scheme, are encashable from any branch of the respondent Bank as well as the branches of the Associate Banks, within the territory of India. As per the appellant''s case despite the above fact the cheques of the appellant/complainant were refused to be encashed on several occasions by the various branches of the respondent and its Associate Banks. Firstly, the Timarpur Branch of the respondent Bank refused the encashment of the appellant''s cheque on 7.9.1991. THE appellant/complainant lodged a written complaint with the Zonal Officer of the respondent Bank. Vide letter dated 17.10.1991, the respondent Bank expressed regrets regarding the same. THEreafter, again on 21.6.1993 the State Bank of Patiala, Wazirpur Industrial Area Branch refused to encash the credit card cheques presented before it by the appellant/complainant. Similarly on 8.7.1993, the appellant/complainant accompanied by his wife, went from office to Kamla Nagar in the evening and since he needed money, the appellant/complainant visited the Suvidha Banking Centre of the respondent Bank to get his credit card cheques encashed but was refused the encashment of the same.

THE appellant/complainant again visited the above said centre on the morning on 9.7.1993 and presented the credit card cheques, which was again refused to be encashed. THE appellant/complainant, therefore, had to get the same encashed from the Roop Nagar Branch of the respondent Bank. Feeling aggrieved with the above acts of commission and/omission, more particularly the attitude of the staff of the respondent, the appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') before the District Forum on 14.7.1993 claiming Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and costs for the deficiency in service by the respondent Bank. The respondent contested the said complaint on the ground that the complainant/appellant had never visited the alleged branches of the respondent Bank for encashment of the credit card cheques and, therefore, there could be no question of refusal to encash cheques in question. It was also contended that since the said cheques are encashed at its branches in the normal course of business, there was no occasion for its staff to refuse to encash the cheques of the appellant/complainant. The Counsel for the respondent alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank.

The District Forum vide its order dated 14.7.1994, dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent who has entered appearance through Advocate and has contested the present appeal.

WE have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, as well as, have considered the entire material placed on record. The main contention of the respondent is that the appellant/complainant had never visited the alleged branches of the respondent Bank to encash his credit card cheques nor was there any refusal to encash the same by its staff. It was stated that the complaint is false and fictitious and deserved to be dismissed with costs. In our opinion the said contention of the respondent does not hold any ground. It is not disputed that the appellant is a credit card holder of the respondent Bank. It does not appeal to reason that the appellant/complainant would persue the complaint so religiously for six long years, if it had been false of fictitious. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also not been able to explain the motive on the part of the appellant for filing a false, imaginary complaint. The District Forum in the impugned order has disbelieved the contention of the appellant/complainant on the ground that after being refused once by the Suvidha Banking Centre of the respondent Bank on the evening on 8.7.1993 no intelligent person would approach the same centre again on 9.7.1993 morning and get disappointed.

ON the above point the appellant/complainant, during the course of his arguments stated that he had visited the Suvidha Banking Centre again on 9.7.1993, morning mainly to lodge a complaint with the Senior Officers of the said branch regarding the refusal to encash his credit card cheques on the previous evening (i.e. 8.7.1993). The appellant/complainant further submitted that he could not lodge his complaint on the evening on 8.7.1993 itself because no senior officers was available at that time. The above arguments of the appellant/complainant appears to be logical and appeals to reason. Moreover, Tis Hazari Branch of the respondent Bank vide letter dated 15.4.1995 addressed to the appellant/complainant has admitted the factum of the appellant/complainant''s visit to its Roop Nagar Branch and encashment of credit card cheques on 9.7.1993. This letter further adds credence to the facts as stated by the appellant/complainant. Another limb of arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent was that the appellant/complainant has not filed the affidavit of his wife, who as per the appellant''s case had accompanied him. The above contention of the respondent is also not tenable as the appellant/complainant has submitted that he is a lay man contesting his own case, he was not aware of the need for filing his wife''s affidavit as well. It was stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there was no deficiency in service on their part in the present case. It was stated that the branches of the respondent Bank had been encashing the S.B.I. Credit card cheques at the Suvidha Banking centre during the routine course of their daily business and as such there was no reason for their staff to refuse the encashment of the cheques of the appellant/complainant.

THE respondents have not filed any documents/record either before the District Forum or before us in support of their above said contention. However, the records of the concerned branch of the respondent Bank were summoned by the order of this Commission on an application, made by the appellant/complainant in that regard. THE said record pertain to the Teller Register for the period from 7.5.1993 to December, 1993. On a perusal of the said record, it is apparent that there is hardly any entry pertaining to the encashment of credit card cheques during the long period of seven months. THErefore, the stand of the respondent that the credit card cheques are encashed regularly in the normal course of business stands belied by their own record.

THE appellant/complainant has also placed on record a letter dated 17.10.1991, addressed to the appellant/complainant by the respondent Bank regreting the refusal of their Timarpur Service Centre to encash the S.B.I. credit card cheques of the appellant/complainant. THE said letter also gives support to the contention of the appellant regarding the refusal of the various branches of the respondent Bank to encash the credit card cheques. From the narration of the above facts it is apparent that there was decidedly deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Coming to the question of awarding compensation, the position is that the appellant, who is a genuine consumer has suffered harassment, mental torture, agony for six long years from the respondents who are not individuals, but being a Nationalised Bank, have the trappings of the ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the ''State'' within the frame work of the Constitution is supposed to care more the welfare and well being of the subjects rather than to harass them in the above said manner.

In view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, has to be allowed and the impugned order has to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the appellant as compensation and further a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of litigation throughout. If the above amount is not paid by the respondents to the appellants within four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order, the same shall carry interest @ 18% per annum till realisation/actual payment.

A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded free of charge to the parties and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal allowed.