District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Complaint Case No. 82 of 2008
1. Smt. Kiran Kumari Prasad w/o Sri Indrabhushan Prasad
2. Sri Priyjit Samaiyar s/o Indrabhushan Prasad,
R/o Qr. No.- 238, Street No.1, Sector-9/A, Bokaro Steel City.
Versus
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Sector-IV, Main Branch,
Bokaro Steel City. Dist.- Bokaro.
Before-
S.M.Alam, President
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-: 25, February,09
Date of case filing-:11 November, 08
-: Judgment:-
Complainant has filed this case against the opposite
Party and sought direction against the opposite party to pay interest from 28.04.08 to 27.08.2008 on Rs. 100000/- to the complainant at the rate of prevalent rate of interest besides compensation of Rs. 75000/- for mental and physical harassment.
2 Brief fact of the case is that the complainant is a Joint Account Holder in opposite party Bank vides Account No. 30259139172. On 28.04.2008 the complainant gave written information to the opposite party regarding stop payment of a cheque vide Rs. 100000/- issued by her on 25.04.2008 vide cheque No. 273201 which was received on 28.04.2008 by the opposite party who had also realized Rs. 50/- towards fee. But despite have information to stop the encashment of cheque, the opposite party debited the cash to the cheque holder. This fact shows that the opposite party even after getting fee did not stop the payment which is apparently negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The complainant through letters dated 16.05.08, dated 25.07.08, dated 29.07.08 and dated 31.07.08 enquired from the opposite party why he encashed the cheque in spite of receive of application served by her to stop payment but the opposite party has not acted on the application. Complainant served legal notice to the opposite party and sought relief to refund her Rs. 100000/- with compensation of Rs. 75000/-, as such total amount comes to Rs. 175000/- within 15 days. The opposite party sent reply of the said notice and informed the complainant that the aforesaid amounts has been realized from the said cheque holder from the account of Kalim Ansari and deposited in the account of the complainant Rs. 50000/- on 11.08.2008 and Rs. 50000/- 27.08.2009. The complainant wanted to enquire about the status of the money realized from two accounts of Kalim Ansari but the opposite party did not response. The complainant, thereafter, is entitled to get interest of her money for the period mentioned above along with compensation on account of deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
3 After issuance of notice the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement admitting the claim of the complainant regarding stop payment of her issued cheque No. 272301 dated 25.04.2008 but the time when the cheque was produced through clearing house for payment, there was link failure in the branch and that is why the hold of “stop payment “ could not be noticed and it is the established banking practice that the instruments presented through Clearing House have to be compulsorily disposed of on the same day and that is why the instrument in question was honoured and there was no occasion to notice the said hold. But the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party by the complainant, the opposite party left no stone unturned for recovery of the cheque amount from the beneficiary without any delay and the opposite party Bank succeeded in getting the cheque amount recovered from Mr. Kalim Ansari and a sum of RS. 50000/- was credited to the account of the complainant on 11.08.2008 and another sum of Rs. 50000/- was credited on 27.08.2008 and it would not be out of context to mention here that the complainant is absolutely wrong to say that the opposite party Bank should have at once recovered the entire amount of Rs. 100000/- from the account of the beneficiary whereas the opposite party Bank is not lawfully authorized to do so rather it can persuade the said account holder to refund the amount in question and that has been done in this case also.
4 The allegation of the complainant is that opposite party has paid cheque amounts in connivance with the beneficiary is false, fabricated and unfounded and the opposite party Bank categorically denies the same. There is no any deficiency rendering service and the complainant has not suffered any loss at the instance of the opposite party and the present complaint case has no merit and complainant is also not entitle to get any compensation from the opposite party and hence the case is fit to be dismissed.
5 Heard Sri Indrabhusan Prasad on behalf of the complainants and learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party. Perused the case records and documents filed on their behalf. The complainant is a joint account holder vide A/c No. 30259139172 in the opposite party Bank, and being so she issued a cheque of Rs. 100000/-vide cheque No. 272301 dated 25.04.2008 in favour of the Mr. Kalim Ansari.
6 Admitted position is that the complainant had asked the opposite party to stop payment of her issued cheque no. 272303 dated 25.04.2008 in favour of one Mr. Kalim Ansari since the complainant smell some foul play and that is why she filed petition by depositing require fee to stop payment to the beneficiary. Admittedly the opposite party received the said application and require fee from the complainants but, the amount of the said cheque was credited to the beneficiary Mr. Kalim Ansari. The ground of payment to the beneficiary is that the said cheque was produced through clearing house for payment as there was link failure in the branch and that is why hold of stop payment could not be notice by the opposite party Bank.
7 However after severe persuasion by the complainant the opposite party could succeed to recover the aforesaid amount from Mr. Kalim Ansari in 2 installments. Rs. 50000/- on 11.02.2008 and Rs. 50000/- on 27.08.2008 which where credited in the account of the complainants.
8 We, therefore observed that the action of the opposite party Bank is apparently deficiency in service as because in spite of prior information to stop payment was received by the Bank and require fee was also realized from the complainant for stop payment but the opposite party Bank committed utter negligent and encashed the said cheque in favour of the beneficiary Mr. Kalim Ansari which caused mental as well as physical agony to the complainants, and hence the complainant instituted the instance case opposite party Bank. We observed that the opposite party is deficient in service and we held the opposite party liable to pay relief to the complainant.
9 Under facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party is directed to pay interest from 28.04.2008 to 27.08.2008 on Rs. 100000/- at the rate of prevalent rate at that point of time within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite party Bank is also directed to pay sum of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand) only as compensation on account of being deficient in service to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Member (lady) President
Tags: Bokaro, Branch Manager, Main Branch, SBI