DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Complaint case No. 43/2009 Date of disposal: 28/08/2009
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT : Mr. P. K. Sarkar.
MEMBER : Mr. S. Pal.
MEMBER : Smt. J. Sarkar. For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. B. Mukhopadhaya.
For the Defendant/O.P.S. : Mr. S. P. Dutta.
(1) Smt. Jharna Barman, W/o-Late Subhas Barman of Vill-Belda, P.O.-Belda, Dist Paschim Medinipur………….Complainant.
Vs.
1) The Post Master General, South Bengal Region, Kolkata-700001.
2) The Superintendent of Post Office, Midnapore Division, at old LIC More, P.O.-Midnapore, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
3) The Sub Post Master at Judge’s Court Post Office, P.O.-Midnapore, Dist Paschim Medinipur
4) The Branch Manager, SBI at Tamluk, Dist Purba Medinipur.
5) The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Durgachak, Haldia, P.O. & P.S.-Durgachak, Dist-Purba Medinipur…………………..Ops.
The complaint having the SB account no.2271922 at the Judge’s Court Post Office, Paschim Medinipur deposited the A/C payee cheque no.000439 dated 06/11/06 for Rs.20,035/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Haldia Durgachak branch, Purba Medinipur on 06/02/07 but the amount of the cheque was not credited in her SB account and the Op. no.3 failed to give her any satisfactory explanation for not crediting the amount of the cheque in her account in spite of several quarries by her. Lastly on 14/01/2009 complainant met the Head Post Master, Rajabazar, Head P.O. and requested him for encashment of the cheque and subsequently on 03/02/09 sent a lawyer’s letter to the Op in the matter of encashment of the cheque, but nothing was done by the Ops till filing of this case. As such, the complainant filed this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops for not crediting the amount of the cheque deposited by her in her SB
Contd………….P/2
- ( 2 ) -
account, with prayer for issuance of direction upon the Ops for crediting the amount of the cheque in her SB account with up to date interest thereon and for payment of compensation for their deficiency in service and litigation cost.
The Op. No.2 contested the case by filing their W/O contending interalia, that the cheque no.000439 dated 06/11/2006 deposited by the complainant on 07/02/07 was an invalid cheque but the same was sent to Tamluk Head Post Office by Midnapore Head P.O. vide RL no.A-3489 dated 16/02/2007 but no information was received by them in spite of issuance of several reminders in the matter of the encashment of the cheque. According to Op. no.2, there was no deficiency on their part in the matter of not crediting the amount of the cheque in the SB account of the complainant.
The points for decisions are :
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the section 2 (i) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
2) Whether the Ops. are deficient in service within the meaning of section 2 (1)(g) read with section 2(1)(0) of the C. P. Act, 1986 ?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for ?
Decisions with reasons :
Point No. 1.
The complainant having the savings account in the Judge’s Court Post Office, Paschim Medinipur was/is undisputedly a consumer of the Op. nos.1,2 and 3 as defined under section 2 (i) (d) (ii) read with section 2 (i) (g) and 2 (i) (o) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
Admittedly, complainant deposited the cheque no.000439 dated 06/11/2006 for Rs.20,035/- in her SB account no.2271922 in Judge’s Court Post Office, the Op no.3, on 06/02/2007 i.e., after expiry of three months from the date of issuance of the cheque. According to the Op. no.2, the complainant deposited the cheque on 07/02/2007 after expiry of the validity of the cheque. It is not understood why the Op. no.3 received the cheque for its encashment in the S/B account of the complainant, if the validity period of the cheque expired on the date of depositing the same. Be that as it may, the Op. no.2 failed to give any satisfactory explanation for not returning the cheque to the complainant when the same was found to be invalid as contended by them. In all probability, the period of validity was not mentioned in the cheque and in that case the validity of the cheque was to expire after expiry of six month from the date of issuance of the cheque as per banking regulations So the Op. nos.1,2 and 3 must be held to
Contd………….P/3
- ( 3 ) -
the deficient in service in the matter of dealing with the cheque deposited by the complainant. They should have credited the amount of the cheque in the SB account of the complainant or should have returned the same to the complainant if the same was found to be invalid. This issue is thus decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No.3
In view of the above findings, the complainant is not only entitled to get the amount of the cheque with interest thereon but also entitled to get adequate compensation from the Ops. for their deficiency in service and litigation cost. So we propose to direct the Op no.1 2&3 to credit amount of the cheque (Rs.20,035/- ) with interest thereon @10% from 1-3-07 till the date of such credit,. in SB account of the complainant We also propose to direct the Op nos. 1 2&3 to pay Rs.5000/ to the complainant towards the compensation for their deficiency in service and litigation cost
Hence,
Ordered
that the complaint be allowed on contest. The Op nos. 1 2&3 are directed to credit amount of the cheque ( Rs.20,035/ ) with interest thereon @10% from 1-3-07 till the date of such credit,. in SB account of the complainant. They are further directed to pay Rs.5000/ to the complainant towards the compensation for their deficiency in service and litigation cost. The Op nos.1 2 & 3 must comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 12% on the amount payable from the date of this order till payment.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the contesting parties free of cost.
Dic. & Corrected by me
I agree I agree
President Member Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur.