Industrial Development Bank Of India Ltd vs PRAFULLACHANDRA S DATYE

BEING aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Ratnagiri in consumer complaint No. 128/06 decided on 30. 3. 2007, whereby the learned District Consumer Forum had directed O. P. Bank to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,350 and also to pay cost of Rs. 2,000, as such IDBI bank has filed this appeal.

BRIEF facts of the case to the extent material may be stated as under: complainant is an Advocate of Ratnagiri is having bank account in the appellant bank at Ratnagiri branch. His relative had deposited a cheque of Rs. 40,000 in the account of the complainant on 10. 8. 2006 at Pune. Complainant went to the bank at Ratnagiri branch and got confirmed by tendering passbook as to what was the amount available in his bank account on 10. 8. 2006. Bank gave entry that amount of Rs. 50,805 was in balance in the account of the complainant/respondent. Hence on 11. 8. 2006, complainant/respondent issued a cheque of Rs. 35,000 in the name of Mr. Madhusudan Limaye. However, the said cheque was returned to Mr. Limaye on the ground of insufficient funds by the IDBI bank and amount of Rs. 150 was debited from the account of the complainant, since cheque was dishonoured. According to the complainant, when bank had shown that his account was having balance of Rs. 50,805 on 10. 8. 2006, which entry bank also made in his saving bank account, dishonour of cheque on 11. 8. 2006 issued by complainant in the name of Mr. Madhusudan Limaye was tantamount to deficiency in service and therefore, according to complainant, he suffered loss of reputation and mental agony and, therefore, he filed consumer complaint claiming Rs. 25,350 with interest thereon and also claimed cost of the proceedings. O. P. filed written statement and pleaded that in fact complainant had not deposited Rs. 40,000 in cash, but he had given cheque. But after clearance of the cheque, bank deposits the amount in the saving bank account of the complainant as per practice. Since the cheque presented by complainant of Rs. 40,000 had been sent for clearing, the amount of Rs. 50,805 was not in balance in the account of the complainant''s passbook on 10. 8. 2006. It got cleared the cheque only in the evening of 11. 8. 2006. But in the meantime, Mr. Limaye presented cheque through his bank issued by complainant and the said cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, because by then, cheque of the complainant of Rs. 40,000 sent for clearance had not been cleared through clearing house and, therefore, bank committed no deficiency in service. Bank pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.

On the basis of documents and affidavits placed before it, learned District Consumer Forum was of the view that on 10. 8. 2006 complainant had deposited Rs. 40,000 through cheque in the bank at Pune and after depositing the cheque on the same day, bank mentioned total balance amount of Rs. 50,805 available in the passbook of the complainant. Bank made entry to that effect in the passbook of complainant on 10. 8. 2006 itself. However, the said cheque was not cleared at the clearing house in the morning of 11. 8. 2006 and at the very moment cheque given by complainant to Mr. Limaye of Rs. 35,000 was presented by Mr. Limaye at Ratnagiri branch of appellant for encashment, it was returned with endorsement "insufficient funds" and amount of Rs. 150 was debited in the account of the complainant, since his transaction resulted into dishonour of cheque. According to Forum below, bank had shown clear balance of Rs. 50,805 on 10. 8. 2006 and, therefore, IDBI bank was guilty of deficiency in service in returning the cheque issued by complainant in the name of Mr. Madhusudan Limaye and their further action to debit Rs. 150 was also held to be uncalled for and improper. According to learned District Consumer Forum, when cheque of Rs. 40,000 was deposited at Pune branch of IDBI in the account of the complainant, they should have taken entry of unclear balance of Rs. 40,000 in the passbook. They should not have mentioned clear balance of Rs. 50,805 on 10. 8. 2006. It was this mistake which is proving costly to the appellant bank. We are also having bank transactions, when we deposit a cheque for clearance, bank immediately takes entry in the passbook of the amount of cheque as ledger balance and whatever is clear balance, that amount is separately mentioned and account holder is supposed to issue cheques in respect of clear balance entry only. But in the case in hand, bank was negligent. It gave entry of having clear balance of Rs. 50,805 to the complainant in his passbook on 10. 8. 2006 itself and when the cheque of Rs. 35,000 was given by complainant to Mr. Limaye, the bank committed clear-cut error of law in not honouring the said cheque, because dishonour of cheque for insufficient funds was contrary to the entry made by the appellant bank in the passbook of Mr. Datye respondent on 10. 8. 2006.

WE have carefully perused the passbook of complainant. On 10. 8. 2006 by clearing cheque No. 815472 was deposited and amount deposited was added in the total balance shown in the last column of the passbook. When on 10. 8. 2006 cheque was pending for clearing or sent to clearing house, unless it came back duly honoured, the bank should not have added amount of Rs. 40,000 in the last column of the passbook of complainant''s account. Bank clearly committed mistake in adding Rs. 40,000 on 10. 8. 2006 itself and showing total balance in the passbook of complainant of Rs. 50,805. 27 and on 11. 8. 2006 Rs. 150 were debited as cheque was dishonoured in clearing house. Even that amount was not immediately debited on 11. 8. 2006 or on 12. 8. 2006. Till 31. 8. 2006 we saw the entries and we are not finding anywhere about debit entry of Rs. 40,000 made by IDBI bank in the passbook of complainant. On the whole, we are finding that bank is certainly deficient in rendering service to the complainant/respondent. It is pertinent to note that banks all over Maharashtra are following the norm to that effect that when cheque is deposited in the bank in one''s account, the bank is simply giving entry of ledger amount and in next column they are showing amount as available balance. Available balance means clear balance for which account-holder can issue cheque or make any sort of transaction, but ledger balance denotes that cheque has been sent for clearance and only after cheque is cleared, the bank is supposed to add that amount in the clear balance status. This practice is being followed throughout Maharashtra by all the banks and we are also accustomed to this sort of practice, but strangely the bank at Ratnagiri had not bothered to keep Rs. 40,000 on 10th and 11th August, 2006 as only ledger balance. They promptly posted entries and showed available balance of Rs. 50,805. 27 in the saving bank account passbook of complainant. It is a mistake they themselves committed for which complainant/respondent cannot be blamed. If bank employees are negligent in discharging their duties in flouting the norms of Financial institutions, then bank has to suffer for the blatant mistake committed by its employee. Bank''s customer cannot be allowed to suffer for the wrong entries made by employee of the appellant bank. Therefore, the award passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just and proper and it is sustainable in law.

HOWEVER, we are of the view that direction to give Rs. 5,350 and that too @ 12% p. a. interest is appearing to be on higher side. So we reduce the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,000 in place of Rs. 5,350 and rate of interest be read as 6% p. a. in place of 12% as mentioned in Clause No. 1 of the operative part of order. We are also inclined to reduce amount of cost of Rs. 2,000 and bring it down to Rs. 1000 in place of Rs. 2,000. With this modification, we pass following order: ORDER 1. Appeal is partly allowed. 2. Figure of Rs. 5,350 appearing in Clause No. 1 of operative part of order be read as Rs. 2,000 and figure of interest @ 12% p. a. appearing in Clause No. 1 of operative part of order be read as 6% p. a. 3. Figure of Rs. 2,000 appearing in operative Clause No. 2 of operative part of order be read as Rs. 1000. 4. Misc. application stands disposed of. 5. Pronounced and dictated in the open Court. 6. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

Appeal partly allowed.