Bashisth Narayan Singh vs Ram Sewak Prasad

FIRST Appeal No. 692 of 2013 has been filed against the order dated 27.8.2013 in Complaint No. 12 of 2009 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (''the State Commission''). The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that the petitioner was having a saving fund account No. 2851 in the Bank of the respondent/opposite party since 2001.

THE petitioner had delivered a cheque No. 010317 for Rs. 56,192 drawn on State Bank of India, Daudnagar, Aurangabad (Bihar) which was received by the FCI, Daudnagar, Aurangabad (Bihar) by selling fifty nine quintal fifteen kilograms of paddy in the Savings Fund Account No. 2851 on 7.4.2009. Petitioner had already deposited Rs. 25,622 at the time of the delivery of the cheque No. 010317 in which the petitioner withdrew Rs. 16,000 up to 25.5.2009 from the Saving Fund Account No. 2851 but when the petitioner demanded in cash Rs. 64,000 by cheque No. 015924 from the respondent on 26.5.2009 to farm his land of twelve acres, the respondent has returned the same by writing on the cheque No. 015924 that the amount was not available in the account up to 26.5.2009 and in so much so, the respondent has not given any information up to date as to availability of Rs. 64,000 to the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner suffered loss of Rs. 20,65,814 because the petitioner has leased the complete farming in lack of money as a result of misappropriation of the respondent. Petitioner has prayed that the State Commission may allow compensation of Rs. 20,65,814 with interest herewith adequate costs by the respondent.

RESPONDENT /opposite party in their written statement before the State Commission have stated that the petitioners case was partly correct and partly in correct. It is stated that till 26.5.2009 there was no available balance in petitioner''s Saving Account as was sought to be withdrawn by him, which can be verified through records. Therefore, the cheque produced by the petitioner to withdraw amount of Rs. 64,000 was rightly returned to the petitioner with endorsement that "amount is not available in account".

IT appears that the petitioner has tried his level best to make out a case for deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Though the fact is that the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Aranda is a rural Branch of the MBGB and the mode of sending the cheques for collection of amount was through Special Messenger to the collecting Branch, i.e., MBGB, Daudnagar. Due to scarcity of staff and as per the general practice and for the safety of Negotiable Instruments, the cheque received between 14.3.2009 and 24.9.2009 were sent through reputed and credit worthy person on 25.4.2009 to the collecting Branch. In this connection, it is relevant to state that the purpose behind sending the cheque through special messenger was/is to safe exchange of Negotiable Instruments in between two branches. Not only this but it was being done in the interest of customers too. The petitioner''s cheque which was deposited on 7.4.2009 was sent for collection through special Messenger on 25.4.2009 along with other instrument to the MBGB Daudnagar and after receipt of advice the amount was credited in his S.F. Account on 27.5.2009. Therefore, there is, no laches or fault or alleged deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.

THE Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (''the State Commission'') vide order dated 27.8.2013 while allowing the complaint observed as follows: 7. From the aforesaid discussion and materials on the record, it is manifest that despite presentation of cheque for collection by the complainant Sri Bashistha Narayan Singh on 7.4.2009, the said cheque was sent for collection by the OP branch on 25.4.2009 and that is not the solitary cheque rather it also contained other cheques, which were submitted and collected by the said Bank even earlier on 14.3.2009, that means such cheques, which were collected on 14.3.2009 were also sent after 40 days for such collection. So, it is a case of negligence and deficiency on the part of the service rendered by Bank for which there cannot be any plausible excuse.

IN the facts and circumstances, we are convinced that the OP Bank was deficient in rendering service, which is also in violation of the guidelines and direction of the Reserve Bank of India being circulated from time -to -time. However, we make it clear that the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lakh and odd is also inflated and exorbitant one for which there is no justification of any count. So we are not inclined to consider this hypothetical demand of compensation for assessing harassment and mental torture. Of course, the complainant in the given situation is entitled for compensation but to a reasonable amount.

IT would also be relevant to mention that had the complainant remained vigilance and taken appropriate steps in time, he could have encashed his money even on the next date, i.e., 27.5.2009. When such amount was credited in his account but the complainant could also said to be negligent in presentation of his cheque on 27.5.2009. The complainant in such situation would also be held negligent when he failed to produce his pass book for updating his account for the aforesaid amount with the Bank. In such situation, this case seems to have been filed only for the purpose of realisation huge compensation without any valid reason.

IN such situation, on consideration of everything on their entirety, we are inclined to hold that the complainant can withdraw the amount so collected but at the same time, we are inclined to award compensation for mental, physical harassment to the tune of Rs. 10,000 which will meet the ends of justice. With the aforesaid observation, this amount is awarded to be paid by Bank so that such Bank should remain vigilant in future in respect of those customer also, who did not lodge any claim but whose cheques for onwards collection remained pending long in the Bank in transmission of such cheques to outline station. 8. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the present appeal for enhancement.

The main grounds of the appeal are as under:

The State Commission had no legal jurisdiction to allow the compensation of Rs. 10,000 with the observation for withdrawing the amount so collected except the credit balance amount of Rs. 9622 in the account No. 2851 of the petitioner where the petitioner was entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 41,31,628 as per the final order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the NCDRC in Consumer Complaint No. 82 of 2006 and Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 on the complaint admitted under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.

The State Commission did not completely consider on the order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi in revision petition No. 3763 of 2012 and the application dated 26.12.2012 filed by the petitioner in consumer complaint No. 12 of 2009 and the documents (evidence) annexed to the written argument along with the complaint of the petitioner filed in consumer complaint No. 12 of 2009.

We have heard the petitioner in person and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

Petitioner has admitted that on 26.5.2009 the date on which he issued cheque for Rs. 64,000 which was returned on the same day as the amount was not available in his account, he had only a balance of Rs. 9622. It was his case that they should have at least paid him that amount. It is also an admitted fact that the cheque for Rs. 56,192 was thereafter cleared and credited to his account on 27.5.2009. Petitioner admitted that after 26.5.2009 when his cheque was returned he made no further inquiry with the Bank. It was his case that the Bank should have informed him that the amount had been credited to his account. We agree with the observation of the State Commission that "had the complainant remained vigilant and taken appropriate steps in time, he could have encashed his money even on the next date, i.e., 27.5.2009. When such amount was credited in his account but the complainant could also said to be negligent in presentation of his cheque on 27.5.2009. The complainant in such situation would also be held negligent when he failed to produce his pass book for updating his account for the aforesaid amount with the Bank."

The Bank has stated that it is a rural branch of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and being a small branch due to scarcity of staff and to ensure safety of negotiable instruments, "the cheque received between 14.3.2009 and 24.4.2009 was sent through reputed and creditworthy persons on 25.4.2009 to the collecting Branch................, when complainant''s cheque was deposited on 7.4.2009 and was sent for collection through special messenger on 25.4.2009 along with other instrument to the MBGB Daudnagar and after receipt of advice, the amount was credited in his S.F. Account on 27.5.2009".

THE State Commission in their order has concluded that "this is not a solitary cheque rather it also contained other cheques, which were submitted and collected by the said Bank even earlier on 14.3.2009 that means cheques which was collected on 14.3.2009 were also sent after 40 days for such collection. So it is a case of negligence and deficiency on the part of the service rendered by the Bank for which there cannot be any plausible excuse".

WE feel at this point of time, when the Government is taking steps and initiatives to promote financial inclusion of rural areas, the infrastructure provided for rural branches has to be geared up to enable them to render more efficient service. It cannot be accepted that due to lack of resources inordinate delays should take place in banking functions. It is for the Government of India more specifically, the Department of Financial Services and the banks concerned who have rural branches to take necessary action to put a system in place where the customers are not inconvenienced by inordinate delays. We also agree with the State Commission that the amount of compensation as asked for is a highly inflated and exorbitant one for which there is no justification on any count. Hence, we find that the impugned order of the State Commission is well -founded and reasonable and hence, there is no reason for us to interfere with the said order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be also sent to the Chairman of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank as well as the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi.