KAUSHAL KUMAR SAHU vs ICICI Bank Ltd

-THIS is an appeal of the complainant who has preferred a complaint before District Forum, Raipur regarding deficiency in service by the respondent Bank. That matter was ultimately decided against the complainant and the complaint was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17. 1. 2008 in Case No. 288/2007 of dismissal of complaint, he has come before this State Commission, by way of this appeal.

IT is not in dispute, that the appellant complainant was having current account in Choubey Colony branch of ICICI Bank, G. E. Road, Raipur. He issued a cheque of Rs. 8,350 on 13. 5. 2007 in favour of M/s. A. K. Agencies, Gudhiyari, Raipur regarding business transactions. The cheque was presented by the payee in the Bank which was dishonoured by the Bank with memo that funds in the account of the complainant were insufficient. It has been averred in the complaint that sufficient amount to honour the cheque was available in the Bank account of the complainant. This fact was admitted by the Bank also before the District Forum, Raipur. In defence, it was submitted that the branch of the bank was fully computerized and on the date of occurrence there was some fault in operation of the computers of bank and the computer itself had rejected the cheque and dishonoured it showing that the amount was not sufficient. Therefore, the memo was issued. It has also been averred in the reply that the cheque could not be cleared on account of mechanical defect of the computer which was beyond the control of the Bank and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

Learned District Forum considered the rival contentions raised by both the parties, as well as material on record, and held in the impugned order that cheque was dishonoured only because of technical defect in the computer and such defect does not come in category of deficiency in service. With these observations the complaint was dismissed.

THE only question which has arisen for determination by this Commission in this appeal is that whether by not clearing the cheque of the complainant when there was sufficient funds available in the accounts of the complainant, the Bank can be said to be liable to pay compensation on the ground of either deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that in statement issued by the Bank itself Rs. 8,969 were available in the Bank account of the complainant on the date when cheque was presented. The cheque was for amount of Rs. 8,350 only and, therefore, it could have been easily cleared by the Bank. It has been submitted that when sufficient funds were available and cheque which was in respect of business transaction of the complainant, which was dishonoured, then the goodwill of the complainant was adversely affected. He could very well be prosecuted for giving a cheque to a party when sufficient funds were not available. It has also been submitted that it was only the grace and kindness of the person, to whom the cheque was issued, that he has not initiated the proceedings of prosecution of the complainant and had informed him to deposit sufficient amount in the Bank account so that cheque could be represented. He submitted that because of the act of respondent Bank the goodwill of the complainant in the market has been adversely affected to a great extent and, therefore, he needs to be suitably compensated.

PER contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that branch of bank was fully computerized and the operations of Banking transactions in account of account holder could only be done through computer. All of a sudden some mechanical defect generated in the computer. Probably on account of some virus, the data feeded in the computers were polluted and computer started giving wrong information. Such incident not only happend regarding the account of complainant but regarding the account of many other account holders. This defect could only be traced and cured after some time. The mechanical defect generated through virus in the Bank computers was not within the control of the Bank. It has been submitted that the Bank has not committed any deficiency in service. No order for compensation can be passed. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record of the District Forum. From the record it is clear that sufficient funds were available in the account of complainant and as it was a current account, so it was basically meant for doing business transactions only. It is also clear that the officers and officials of Bank were having knowledge that the computers installed in the branch of bank have been polluted due to some virus and was not giving correct figures in respect of accounts of different accounts holders. Then, it was the duty of Bank officers to stop all the banking transactions through such defective and virus affected computers and to start manual working immediately. Such action has not been taken by the Bank but on the contrary the officers and officials were even after having such knowledge, failed to discharge their duties and continued obeying the wrong reports given by the computers. They were mechanically issuing memos of dishonour of cheques to the customers like the complainant. This also shows the deficiency in service on the part of officers and officials of Bank because of this conduct and negligence shown by the Bank, the goodwill of the complainant must have suffered adversely, as stated by him in his affidavit and, therefore, he needs to be compensated suitably. We are convinced that the case of deficiency in service on the part of respondent Bank has been fully made out. Learned District Forum was wrong in holding that because the computer failed so wrong report was generated and it was only mechanical defect for which bank is not responsible. We do not agree with this finding by the District Forum, therefore, the same is set aside.

RESULTANTLY, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed.

CONSIDERING amount of cheque, and the fact that on fourth day the same cheque was represented in the same branch of the Bank and was duly honoured, we feel that only token amount should be awarded as compensation. We feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case such amount of compensation should be Rs. 5,000. Therefore, allowing this appeal Rs. 5,000 is awarded to the complainant appellant on account of deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Apart from this Rs. 1,000 be also paid by the respondent to complainant as cost of this appeal. The amount is required to be deposited by the Bank in the District Forum within a period of 30 days. In case of failure in depositing the amount in District Forum, respondent may be liable to pay interest @ 9% p. a. Appeal allowed.