ASSAM IMPORT AGENCY LTD. vs CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK

THIS complaint has been filed by Assam Import Agency Ltd. against the Chief Manager and Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Jaipur claiming interest and compensation.

THE complainant Assam Import Agency Ltd. had a current account bearing No. 5572 in the UCO Bank. THE complainant had also another current account in the said Bank under the name of Assam Import Agency Ltd. (Equity share current account in the said Bank under the name of Assam Import Agency Ltd. (Equity share allotment money). Upon going though the complaint and the version filed by the opposite parties, it is not in dispute that on 11.6.1990 on amount of Rs. 7,40,000/- had been wrongly debited by the Bank in the current account No. 5572 of the complainant. As a matter of fact, this amount of Rs. 7,40,000/- was to be transferred telegraphically from the other account of the complainant under the name of Assam Import Agency Ltd. (Equity share allotment money) to Gauhati. THE case of the opposite parties is that as there was similarity between the names under which the two accounts were opened by the complainant, by mistake this amount was debited against the complainant in current account No. 5572 instead of in the other account No. 5571. It is stated that this mistake occurred on account of rush of work in the Bank. When the mistake was brought to the notice of the Bank, the said amount of Rs. 7,40,000/- was credited in the current account of the complainant bearing No. 5572. THE other mistake committed by the Bank was that it debited on 13.12.1990 an amount of Rs. 26,377/- in the current account No. 5572. With regard to this, the version of the opposite parties is that a cheque for the amount of Rs. 26,377/- drawn by Amar Traders came in clearance and the same was cleared by the Bank, but on account of rush of work in the Bank this amount of Rs. 26,377/- was debited in the current account No. 5572 of the complainant instead of in the account of M/s. Amar Traders. When the mistake came to the notice of the Bank, it corrected the mistake on 8.1.1991 and credited the current account of the complainant by Rs. 26,377/- . The third mistake which occurred was that on 9.2.1991 the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in his current account No. 5572 but instead of crediting, this amount was reduced from the balance. The opposite parties'' version in this regard is that although the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was mentioned as credited in complainant''s aforesaid account, but while making the total of the balance, instead of adding this amount in the balance, the same was subtracted. This mistake was corrected by the Bank after about one year four months on 9.6.1992.

On 25.3.1991 the complainant had deposited in its current account No. 5572 an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, but only Rs. 5,000/- was credited and the remaining amount of Rs. 45,000/- was credited on 7.5.1991. In this regard the version of the opposite parties is that the complainant had submitted a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- for being deposited in its current account, but in the pay-in-slip the complainant himself mentioned Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- and for this reason only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was credited in the complainant''s account and when the matter came to notice, the remaining amount of Rs. 45,000/- was credited in ''complainant''s account on 7.5.1991. The last mistake which occurred was that on 21.3.1991 the complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000/- in his current account No. 5572, but this amount was not credited in the complainants said account, but was credited in another account which was in the name of Assam Plywood Centre. The opposite parties state that this mistake occurred because of the similarities of the names of the two accounts and when the mistake came to notice, the same was corrected on 21.7.1992 i.e. after one year and four months.

ABOVE is the case of the parties with regard to the above five mistakes. It is in evidence that the complainant had (sic.) dated 21.6.1992 was in favour of Subodh Chemicals. The other cheque dated 9.7.1992 was for Rs. 50,000/- and was drawn in favour of self. Both these cheques were dishonoured by the UCO Bank and were referred to the drawer. According to the complainant, the said two cheques were dishonoured despite the fact that as the amounts being correctly credited, the complainant had the balance in its current account No. 5572 and the Bank should not have dishonoured the two cheques.

IF in our banking system such mistakes occurred in a single account not once but for five times within a span of nine months, confidence in the banking system would be shakened. There was definitely deficiency in service on the part of the UCO Bank in making incorrect credit entries of one account in another and later on even after more than one year realising the mistake, recrediting the amount in complainant''s account. As to the amount of the loss to the complainant suffered, it may be mentioned that in current account no interest is payable to the account holder. It was not a savings Bank account. However, the two cheques which the complainant had drawn on 21.6.1992 and 9.7.1992 for Rs. 50,000/- each could not have been dishonoured by the Bank despite the fact that the complainant had balance in his said account, had the mistake of incorrectly debiting or crediting the amounts in other accounts as detailed above would not have been committed by Bank. Naturally when in such circumstances the cheques are dishonoured, loss accrues to the drawer and his credit is also affected. Taking into account these facts and further the fact that no other loss was established in the case, the UCO Bank should pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for having made above detailed five incorrect entries and correcting the same after considerable delay. Heavy rush of work cannot be made an excuse for such faulty service not only once but five times. We, therefore, partly allow this complaint and direct the UCO Bank, Jaipur to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. Since the complaint succeeds only in part, the parties will bear their own costs. Complaint partly allowed.