BASHISTH NARAYAN SINGH S/O. LATE BHIKHAREE SINGH vs RAM SEWAK PRASAD THE MANAGER, MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK

The present appeal execution no. 26 of 2016 has been filed against the order dated 14.07.2016 in Execution Case no. 21 of 2015 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patna (''the State Commission?).

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/ complainant had opened a savings Bank account bearing no. 2851 in Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Aranda, District Aurangabad in the year 2001. The appellant had deposited a cheque bearing no. 010317 for Rs.56,192/- in the aforesaid savings Bank account issued by the State Bank of India, Daudnagar Branch, Aurangabad on 07.04.2009. Prior to that, the appellant had already deposited Rs.25,622/- in the said savings bank account, out of which Rs.16,000/- was withdrawn by him till 25.05.2009. The appellant issued cheque bearing no. 015924 amounting to Rs.64,000/- for withdrawal on 26.05.2009 but the respondent/ Bank refused to pay the amount and returned the cheque mentioning therein that the aforesaid amount was not available in the account of the appellant upto 26.05.2009. Thus, the appellant has suffered a loss of Rs.20,65,814/-, as the appellant had to lease the complete field due to lack of money.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the attitude of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Aranda and the loss suffered by the appellant, as he could not farm his field due to paucity of fund and the appellant filed the complaint for awarding a compensation of Rs.20,65,814/-.

The respondent/ OP Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, filed their written statement stating that the complaint filed by the appellant was frivolous and the case had been filed only with a view to harass and humiliate the appellant. The appellant - Bank accepted that the appellant had deposited the cheque bearing no. 010317 for Rs.56,192/- in his aforesaid Savings Bank Account and issuance of cheque bearing no. 015924 amounting to Rs.64,000/- for withdrawal from the respondent/ OP-Bank which was rightly returned to the appellant with an endorsement "amount was not available in account". The suffering of loss of Rs.20 lakhs and odd by the appellant is has no basis.

The Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Aranda is a rural Branch of the MBGB and the Bank said the cheques for collection of amount through special messenger to the collecting Branch, i.e., MBGB Daudnagar. Due to scarcity of staff, as per general trend and for the safety of Negotiable Instruments, the cheque received between 14.03.2009 to 24.04.2009 were sent through reputed and credit worthy person on 25.04.2009 along with other instruments to the MBGB Daudnagar and after receipt of advice, the amount was credited in the account of the appellant on 27.05.2009. Therefore, there was no laches or fault on the part of the Respondent - Bank.

The State Commission while allowing the complaint observed as under: " 8. 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 directions 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 court, 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 vigilant and taken appropriate steps in time, he could have encashed his money even on the next date, i.e., 27.05.2009. When, such amount was credited in his account but the complainant could also said to be negligent in presentation of his cheque on 27.05.2009. 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 ever thing 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 onward collection remained pending long in the Bank in transmission of such cheques to outline situation.

The complaint is hereby allowed. The amount of compensation should be paid within 30 days from the date of communication of this order to be bank failing which interest @ 10% per annum is to be realised from them".

Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the appellant/ complainant filed an appeal before the National Commission. The National Commission vide its order dated 29.04.2014 had dismissed the appeal. The appellant then filed a review application which was also dismissed on 11.06.2014. He then filed a review petition before the Hon?ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 29.07.2015. The complainant then filed an execution petition before the State Commission for compliance of the order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the State Commission with the interpretation that the amount to be paid to him was Rs.20,10,000/- and not Rs.10,000/- which had already been paid to the Decree holder. The State Commission vide its order dated 14.07.2016 dismissed the execution petition and observed as under: "Having considered the points raised by both sides and on observance of the order passed by this Commission in complaint case no. 12 of 2009 order dated 27.08.2013, it appears that this Commission has allowed Rs.10,000/- as compensation which was to be paid to the complainant - decree holder by the opposite party - judgment debtor and not Rs.20,10,000/-. In paragraph 9 of the order dated 27.08.2013 it has been observed, "we make it clear that the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and odd is also inflated and exorbitance one for which there is no justification on any count. So, we are not inclined to consider this hypothetical demand of compensation for assessing harassment and mental torture". In our view, the order dated 27.08.2013 passed by this Commission in complaint case no. 12 of 2009 has already been complied and there is nothing to be complied now. Hence, the execution petition filed by the decree holder is dismissed".

Hence, the present execution appeal.

I have heard the appellant in person. He contended that the State Commission?s order is wrong and should be set aside as a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- had been only allowed for mental and physical harassment but the State Commission have awarded Rs.20 lakh for the loss incurred by him. I have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission dated 27.08.2013. Paragraphs 8 and 9 are reproduced above. It is quite clear from this that Rs.20 lakh was not awarded by the State Commission but the appellant was only awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment. In paragraph 10 of the State Commission?s order it has held that the complainant was also negligent when he failed to produce his pass book for updating his account for the aforesaid amount with the Bank, when such an amount was credited in his account. Further the complainant should have been vigilant and taken appropriate steps in time, i.e., 27.05.2009 when the amount was credited to his account and presented the cheque for encashment.

In view of the above, I do not find any material illegality in the impugned order which calls for interference under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I affirm the order of the State Commission and dismiss the appeal execution with no order as to cost.