S. DUTTA vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 27.03.2008, passed by the Mizoram State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aizawl (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 05/2007, Shri S. Dutta vs. Managing Director, SBI, Central Office, Bombay & Ors., vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aizawl, dated 24.08.2007, in Consumer Complaint No. 6/2005, filed by the present petitioner/complainant, dismissing the said complaint, was set aside.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant S. Dutta is the sole proprietor of a firm, M/s. Dutta Trading Enterprises situated at Aizawl, which provides goods and services to various Government Departments. The petitioner is maintaining a current account, bearing no. 12/1788 with the main branch of the State Bank of India (SBI) at Aizawl. It is stated that the Government of Mizoram, Public Works Department issued four cheques to the complainant''s firm for the materials/equipment required from time to time, as per the following details:-

(i) Cheque No. C.977131 dated 18.12.1998 for Rs. 4,95,522/- issued by the EE, PWD, Mechanical Division, Aizawl.

(ii) Cheque No. C.977331 dated 28.12.1998 for Rs. 3,56,013/- issued by the EE, Teirei Project Division, West Phaileng.

(iii) Cheque No. C.958565 dated 26.02.1999 for Rs. 94,098/- issued by the EE, PWD, Airport Division.

(iv) Cheque No. C.978334 dated 30.03.1999 for Rs. 97,760/- issued by the EE, PWD, Mechanical Division, Aizawl.

The above four cheques for a total amount of Rs. 10,43,393/- were submitted to the Aizawl treasury with endorsement on each cheque for being credited to account no. 12/1788 in the OP Bank. It was found by them that the Bank credited the amount of the cheques to the account of some other person having account no. 11/1738. Despite contacting the Bank many times, the necessary rectification was not done. A legal notice dated 18.02.2004 was also served upon the OP-4, Aizawl Branch of the SBI for refund of the entire amount of Rs. 10,43,393/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date, the cheques were passed by the Aizawl treasury and sent to OP-4 Bank. The Bank, however, failed to provide the said amount to them, saying that a complaint had been lodged with the police authorities. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the erring officers of the Bank. Vide order dated 23.06.2007, issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl in Criminal Trial No. 377/2000 under Section 420/468/409 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the accused in the case, LalbiaKenge was convicted and was directed to sign a bond/undertaking to satisfy the total amount of Rs. 10,43,393/- to the proprietor, M/s. Trading Enterprises in monthly instalments of Rs. 15,000/- w.e.f. July, 2007. However the said payment was not made. The petitioner then filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum, but vide order dated 24.08.2007, the District Forum dismissed the same on the plea that keeping in view the judgement of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, it was no longer necessary to issue separate judgment and orders in the case. Being aggrieved against this order, the petitioner/complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide impugned order and direction was given to the OP Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 10,43,393/- to the petitioner/appellant within a period of one month from the date of the order. It was also stated that if the amount was not paid within the said period, the same shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost was also allowed to be paid. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition, seeking interest on the amount allowed by the State Commission .

During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant took the plea that they had received the amount in question from the Bank on 16.05.2013 and they were entitled to be paid interest on the same w.e.f. 07.07.1999 till the date of payment. The OP Bank instead of making payment to them directly as per the orders of the State Commission, had deposited the amount with the State Commission, from where they had received the principal amount on 16.05.2013.

In reply, the learned counsel from the OP Bank stated that as stated in the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, the complainant had good working relationship in his business dealings with the accused in the case, LalbiaKenge. Whenever she obtained work for supply of different items from the Government of Mizoram, she got the materials from M/s. Dutta Trading Enterprises only for the said supply. The learned counsel stated that in pursuance of the order of the State Commission, they had already deposited the amount with the State Commission, although it was done with a delay of about 15 days from the time permitted by the said Commission. The OP had discharged their responsibility in terms of the order of the State Commission and hence, they were not liable to pay any further amount. The learned counsel for the OP stated that the petitioner should have been vigilant to withdraw the amount from the State Commission at the earliest possible.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the order of the State Commission mentioned categorically that the amount in question should be paid ''to the appellant'', who was the petitioner/complainant in this case. The OP should have, therefore, paid the amount directly to the petitioner. The learned counsel argued that they were liable to be paid interest on the amount involved in the matter. He has drawn attention to the written statement filed by the OP Bank before the State Commission, in which the Bank admitted that it was revealed from the departmental inquiry conducted by an officer of the Bank that the cheques in question were entered in the other account by forgery and hence, there was unlawful act committed by the staff of the SBI to enable the said Lalbiakenge to swindle the entire money.

It is amply made clear from the facts and circumstances of the case on record that the four cheques received by the petitioner/complainant, amounting to Rs.10,43,393/- were misappropriated by the staff of the OP, SBI with a view to give benefit to another person LalbiaKenge. In the criminal proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge, the said LalbiaKenge was convicted under Section 420 IPC etc. and a direction was given to her to repay the amount in instalments. However, in so far as the petitioner/complainant is concerned, the deficiency in service towards them by the Bank has been fully proved and it was the duty of the Bank to return their money to them, as early as possible. Even in pursuance of the order passed by the State Commission, in which it was stated that the said amount should be paid by the Bank to the appellant within a period of one month, the Ops, for the reasons best known to them, chose to deposit the said amount with the State Commission, which should not have been done. In any case, it is very clear that the petitioner/complainant received the money due to them as late as 16.05.2013. It is quite evident that since the complainant is not at fault in any manner, he is entitled to receive interest on the said amount for the entire period for which the credit of the said money was not given to them. The plea of the petitioner/complainant in the grounds of revision petition, claiming interest for the said period is, therefore, justified. It is clear that the date, the said cheques were passed by the treasury at Aizawl, the amount in question should have been credited to the account of the petitioner/complainant. It is ordered, therefore, that the petitioners shall be entitled to receive interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount in question from the 07.07.1999, till the date they physically received the amount in question. It is made clear that the said interest shall include the interest on the principal amount as well as the component of compensation against mental harassment, suffered for such a long time for non-payment of their legitimate money.

The Revision Petition, therefore, stands allowed in terms of the above directions. It is further directed that the said payment shall be made by the OP Bank within a period of four weeks from today, failing which they shall be liable to pay the interest @ 15% p.a. on the entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs.