DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLKATA, UNIT-II
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 7th floor, Kolkata – 700 087
Case No.CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No.641 of 2008 Date of filing : 11-08-2008
Date of Order : 16-12-2009
Complainant :
Vs.
O.P. /O.P.s :
Neena Shah w/o. Mahesh Shah,
Block-B, A-2, Flat No.32, 16, Dover Lane,
P.S. Gariahat, Calcutta – 700 029
1) Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Stephen House, 4D, B.B.D. Bagh (East), P.S. Hare Street, Calcutta – 700 001.
2) Aditya Puri, Chairman/Managing Director, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Panel West, Bombay – 400 013
.
Before : HON’BLE PRESIDENT : SHRI S. BHATTACHARYYA
HON’BLE MEMBER : SHRI S. K. DEB
***********************************************************************************************************************************
ORDER
One Mrs. Neena Shah has filed a complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended upto date alleging deficiency of service against the OPs. The case of the complainant is that she maintains a bank account with the branch of the bank of the OP No.1 with cheque facilities. The complainant states that she maintains sufficient fund in her account and a cheque for Rs.2,670/- was issued in favour of CESC Ltd. on 01-08-2007, which was presented to the OP No.1 on 04-08-2007 on which date as per her telephonic discussion with OP No.1 cash was deposited so that the said cheque could be cleared. The complainant alleges that though there was sufficient fund in her account the aforementioned cheuqe was dishonoured with the remark “insufficiency of fund”. According to the complainant the OP No.1 failed to discharge his duties as banker, which damaged the reputation of the complainant and her credibility. Moreover, she had to incur financial loss due to returning of cheques and penalty and the electricity bill. The complainant’s husband wrote a letter to the OP No.1 for informing him the ground for dishonouring the cheque with copy to OP No.2., but no reply was received. Thereafter, her advocate wrote a letter to the OP No.1 in this respect, but to no effect. Thereafter a complaint was filed in this Forum. Prayer has been made to issue direction on the OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as legal cost and to pass further order/orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
The OPs denied deficiency of service by submitting written version. According to the OPs the complaint is not maintainable in fact and law and there has been misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. The OPs have stated that the complainant is a client of their bank and they want to co-operate with all their clients keeping good relation for the interest of their business and they never refund cheque if there is sufficient fund in the account of their client for damaging the client’s reputation. The OPs have mentioned that the impugned cheque was presented in their bank on 04-08-2007 at 10-00 a.m. when there was not sufficient fund and the deposited amount came forward before the bank at about 11-30 to 12-00 noon on 04-08-2007 and that the complaint is time barred as after 13 months from the cause of action the compliant to this Forum was made. The OPs prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed brief notes on arguments. The matter was heard on 12-11-2009 in presence of both the parties. The documents as produced were perused and considered along with the submissions of the respective parties.
From the pleadings of both the sides we have the following questions for determination:
1) If the complaint was made within the period of limitation and if there is misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?
2) If the OPs are liable for deficiency in service?
Decision with Reasons
For brevity and convenience both the questions are discussed together.
The cause of action arose on 04-08-2007 when the cheque was dishonoured. U/s.24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 the period of limitation is two year from the date of cause of action. The complaint was filed on 11-08-2008 wherein it follows that it was filed within the period of limitation. The complaint was made against the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Ltd., Stephen House and Shri Aditya Puri, Chairman/Managing Director, HDFC Bank as the OPs, but they are not personally responsible for the refusal of the cheque. We, therefore, are of opinion that there has been misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
The complainant issued the cheque in favour of the CESC Ltd. on 01-08-2007 and when the said cheque was presented for clearance on 04-08-2007 at 10-00 a.m. there was not sufficient fund, cash was received on date at 11-30 to 12-00 noon and so the OPs dishonoured the cheques for insufficient fund. The OP did not produce any evidence as to the time when the cash was deposited. At the time of hearing the OPs submitted that the complainant was telephoned on 04-08-2007 to inform her of the fact as she is their customer for a long time. Hence, we have no option, but to accept the contention of the OPs. At the time of hearing the OPs submitted that once the work of clearing of cheque is started, it cannot be stopped.
We are, therefore, are of opinion that the OPs are not liable for deficiency in service. Hence,
Ordered
1) That the complaint is dismissed on contest.
2) There will be no order as to cost.
Supply copies to the parties free of cost as per rules.
Dictated & Corrected
by me
(MEMBER(M)
MEMBER(M) PRESIDENT
Tags: HDFC Bank