Oriental Bank Commerce vs Regional Manager , Bimla

SHRI Ravi Kumar, Advocate has filed his vakalatanama which is taken on record. However, Shri H P Bhardwaj, Advocate for petitioner has moved an application seeking adjournment on the ground, that he is unable to travel to Chandigarh and prays for suitable date be fixed for hearing at Delhi.

THE Counsel for petitioner present before us is ready to argue the matter.

HEARD . Deceased N K Mehta respondent/ complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (''the District Forum'') alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioners on the ground that the cheque deposited by him was misplaced by the petitioner Bank.

DURING the course of the proceedings deceased -complainant has died LRs of the deceased have been brought on record. The complaint was contested by the petitioner/ opposite parties on the ground that it was only a collecting bank and there is no cause of action against them.

THE District Forum vide order dated 01.05.2006 allowed the complaint. The operative part of the District Forum''s order read as under: "In these circumstances, we have held that the complainant has successfully established deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We hereby allow the complaint with direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.24,308/ - (Rupees twenty four thousand three hundred eight only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization to the LRs of the complainant. Sum of Rs.1000/ - (Rupees one thousand only) is also awarded to the LRs of the complainant towards litigation expenses."

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, Petitioner filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (''the State Commission''). The State Commission vide impugned order dated 26.05.2011, dismissed the appeal.

SINCE , paltry amount of Rs.24,308/ - only along with interest is involved in the present case, and consumer complaint was filed in the year 2003, i.e., more than 12 years have elapsed, so keeping in view the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani and another, 2012 4 CPJ 5 we are not inclined to entertain this revision. The Apex Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank observed: "Number of litigation in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Bank, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the officers'' skin. Judicial system is over burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion this court has reminded the Central Government, State Government and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked or resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category".

The Apex Court further held; "10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers'' office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of Rs. 15,000/ -,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of Rs. 12,950/ - leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded Rs. 3,000/ -towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs. 15,950/ -. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for Rs. 15,000/ -.

Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.

We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/ - to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs. 25,950/ - for a claim of Rs. 15,000/ -,apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins."

THE above quoted judgment is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

THEREFORE , we are not inclined to entertain this petition. However, the question of law raised in this petition is kept open, to be decided in an appropriate case, where the stakes are high and amount involved is substantial.

WITH these observations, the present revision petition stand disposed of.

DASTI in addition.