ICICI BANK LTD. vs RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL

BEING aggrieved by order dated 2.12.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal(for short, ''State Commission ''), Petitioner/ Opposite Party has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ''Act '').

BRIEF facts are that Respondent/Complainant is a constituted attorney of Hulash Chand Agarwal(Karta), HUF and run the business under the name and style as M/s. Akhechand Hulaschand. The respondent maintain a Current A/c.No.62760551306, in the name of Akhechand Hulaschand. The petitioner promised to provide the respondent with high value cheque clearing facility along with other facilities. The high value clearing facility is a system whereunder the cheque clearing cycle completes on the same day and the customer depositing the cheque is permitted to withdraw the proceeds next day morning. Respondent deposited a high value cheque no.890623 for Rs.8,93,546/ - drawn SBI on 06.07.209. It is stated that the said high value cheque was cleared and the amount was credited on 07.7.2009. The account balance on 07.7.2009 showed credit balance of Rs.13,21,678 -61 and respondent issued several cheques. However, some outward cheques were returned dishonoured in respect of sufficient credit balance and one self -cheque for Rs.30,000/ - was also dishonoured on 07.07.2009 and 08.07.2009. Due to such dishonour of cheques at the fault of the petitioner, the respondent suffered loss and damage in respect of reputation and business. As soon as respondent came to know the fact of dishonour of the cheque issued by him, he rushed to the Petitioner -Bank on 08.07.2009 at about 2. P.M. and requested it to generate a statement of accounts from 1st July, to 8th July, 2009 and also sought explanation and the grounds of dishonour of the cheques. Petitioner ''s officials however, misbehaved with the respondent and refused to generate and hand over the statement of accounts at around 4.25 p.m, which showed credit balance of Rs.13,21,678 -61 as on 07.07.2009. Respondent sent a complaint to the petitioner on 16.07.2009. Thereafter, he sent another letter dated 25.08.2009, through its Advocate. Thus, respondent in its Consumer Complaint has prayed for following directions; ''''1. To pay Compensation amounting to Rs.4 lakh for compensation or damage caused by the deficiency in service and for inconvenience, mental agony and harassment and

litigation costs ''''.

Petitioner in its written statement had taken an objection that drawee bank is a necessary party. However, it has admitted that respondent is having Current Account in their bank. It is further stated that high value clearing zone was set up by the clearing houses for facilitating fast realization of high value cheques, so that the customers can get the credit on the same day. However, to qualify as a high value cheque, the cheque should not merely be of a certain amount but it should be issued by a high value clearance branch. The cheque in the question was issued by a branch which is not a high value participating branch. The respondent had deposited the cheque for Rs.8,93,546/ - being No.890623 on 06.07.2009. The draweee bank was State Bank of India, Rubi Park Branch. As the said branch was not a high value participating branch, the cheque was lodged for clearance not on the same date, but the next day, i.e. 07.07.2009. On 07.07.2009, the State Bank of India informed the Reserve Bank of India that due to system failure, it would not be able to process the returns. Hence, Reserve Bank of India granted one day extension to the State Bank of India for return clearing. All State Bank of India ''s cheques were pending for clearance on 07.07.209 and the clearing balance was available to all such customers on 08.07.2009 in the evening. It is asserted that the cheque deposited by the respondent was not cleared on 07.07.209. Although the amount of Rs.13,21,678 -61 was reflected in the respondent ''s account, but the same could not have been withdrawn until and unless the same was cleared by the Drawee Bank.

DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit -II(for short, ''District Forum '') vide order dated 29.4.2011, held that State Bank of India, Rubi Park Branch is not a necessary party. Further, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence, it dismissed the complaint.

BEING aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which allowed it, vide the impugned order. Hence, this revision.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for a cheque to qualify as a high value cheque, the mere fact of it being above certain amount is not enough and the same is required to be issued by a banking branch having high value clearance. The said cheque was drawn on the State Bank of India, Rubi Park Branch, which is not a high value clearance branch. Under these circumstances, there is no fault on behalf of the Petitioner ''s Bank. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. State Commission, in its impugned order has observed; ''''The Statement of Account as filed by the complainant and marked as Annexure ''''P -1 '''' to this memorandum of appeal which is also part of the records the complainant case, has not been disputed by the respondent Bank. It is clearly evident therefrom that the aforesaid amount of Rs.8,93,546/ -(Eight lacs ninety -three thousand five hundred forty -six) was shown credited on 7th July, 2009. Before such credit the Account Balance stood at Rs. 4.28,132.61 paisa(Rs.Four lacs twenty -eight thousand one hundred thirty -two and sixty -one paisa). Even assuming that the aforesaid high amount of Rs.8,93,546/ -(Eight Lacs ninety -three thousand five hundred forty -six) was not credited in favour of the Account Holder before 15:57 hrs., then also there was no occasion to dishonour the cheque No.167142 of Rs.30,000/ -(Thirty Thousand) which was allegedly presented at 11:37 a.m. on 7th July, 2009 particularly when the credit balance stood at Rs.4,28,132.61 paisa(Rs. Four lacs twenty -eight thousand one hundred thirty -two and sixty -one paisa) as aforesaid. Even if we go by the case made out by the respondent Bank that the said self Cheque No.16142 for Rs. 30,000/ -(Thirty thousand) was dishonoured at 11: 37 a.m, then also it cannot be denied that in the morning of 7th July 2009 there was a credit balance of Rs.4,28,132/ -(Four Lacs twenty -eight thousand one hundred thirty -two). Therefore, there was also no occasion for dishonouring the Cheque No.167136 drawn for Rs.3,27,146/ -(Three lacs thirty -seven thousand one hundred forty -six) which was presented on 7th July, 2009. The above statement of account clearly shows that the second Cheque No.161139 for Rs.1,15,627(One Lac fifteen thousand six hundred twenty -seven) was returned on 8th July 2009 for the reasons of insufficient fund. In any event, the aforesaid high amount of Rs.8,93,546/ -(Eight lacs ninety -three thousand five hundred forty -six) having been credited as per the version of the respondent Bank on 7th July 2009 at about 15: 57 hrs., the dishonouring of the said Cheque No.161139 for Rs.1,15,627/ -(One Lax fifteen thousand six hundred twenty -seven) was absolutely gross deficiency of service by the respondent Bank.

The Forum below has failed to scrutinize the Statement of Account as produced by the complainant and not denied by the respondent Bank in its proper perspective. The Statement of Account read with the letter dated 8th July 2009 issued by the respondent Bank has established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent Bank had acted with gross deficiency in service by dishonouring all three aforesaid Cheques mentioned hereinabove on the ground of insufficient fund.

The complainant has thus been able to establish gross deficiency in service by the respondent Bank by dishonouring the said Cheque on the ground as disclosed in the complaint case.

The finding made by the Forum below that the complainant Rajendra Kumar Agarwal has failed to establish on the strength of any document that he is running the business organization of M/s Akhechand Hulashchand as the Karta of Hindu undivided family is also inconsequential. The correspondences between the parties as disclosed in the above complaint case reveal that said Rajendra Kumar Agarwal wrote letters in this regard on behalf of M/s Akheychand Hulashchand which were replied to by the respondent Bank without raising any question that he had no authority to make such correspondences in respect of the transaction carried out on the basis of the Cheques issued by the said business organization in relation to the Account maintained by it. The respondent Bank has also not been able to establish on the strength of any previous transaction and/or the correspondences made between the parties that the complainant is a ''stranger '' ''to the said business organization or the Account maintained by it. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides for filing of a complaint on behalf of the complainant and disposal of the same in a summary manner. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and more particularly in the absence of any cogent material showing the complainant as ''stranger '' to the aforesaid business organization and/or the Account maintained by it, we are not inclined to entertain a technical point of such nature for the purpose of dismissal of complaint particularly when the complainant must succeed on the merits of the complaint case.

For the reasons as above we are of the view that the judgment and order of the Forum below can not be sustained. The same is therefore set aside.

In view of the findings made hereinabove, it can not be disputed that the complainant had suffered stress and mental anxiety because of the gross deficiency in service by the respondent Bank in not honouring the Cheques as above, even though it had sufficient balance in the aforesaid Account when the respective Cheques were presented to the respondent Bank.

We therefore allow the complaint case and direct the respondent Bank to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000(Forty thousand) to the complainant for causing stress and mental agony to the complainant and Rs.10,000/ -(Ten thousand) by way of litigation cost. The respondent Bank will further reverse the debits made twice for an amount of Rs.386/ - on account of charges for return of the Cheque Nos.167136 and 167139.

Both the aforesaid amount either shall be paid to the complainant directly or credited in the aforesaid account No.627605251306 in the name of M/s Akheychand Hulashchand by 31st December, 2011 in default of which the same will carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date till payment. The appeal is thus allowed ''''.

THERE is no dispute about this fact that, respondent was having a Current Account with the Petitioner ''s Bank. It is apparent from the above findings of the State Commission, that the statement of account clearly shows that the second Cheque No.161139 for Rs.1,15,627(One Lac fifteen thousand six hundred twenty -seven) was returned on 8th July 2009 for the reasons of ''''insufficient fund ''''. In any event, amount of Rs.8,93,546/ -(Eight lacs ninety -three thousand five hundred forty -six) having been credited as per the version of the respondent Bank on 7th July 2009 at about 15: 57 hrs., the dishonouring of the Cheque No.161139 for Rs.1,15,627/ -(One Lac fifteen thousand six hundred twenty -seven) was absolutely gross deficiency of service by the Petitioner ''s Bank, as the respondent was having sufficient funds in his account at that time.

IN view of the above evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the State Commission is based on sound reasonings. No jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us, to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Act. Since, the State Commission has given detailed and reasoned order, it does not call for any interference nor it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, there is no merit in the present revision petition and same is hereby dismissed in limini with cost of Rs.5,000/ -(Rupees Five Thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit cost of by way of demand draft, in the name of ''''Consumer Legal Aid Account '''' of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

LIST on 09.05.2014 for compliance.