SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The facts of the case are that the complainant is a joint holder of a Bank Account at Bhowanipore Branch of O.P. State bank of India since August,2017. Complainant issued an account payee cheque of Rs.40,000/- to M/S Orientation Transport & Logistic Pvt. Ltd. for extra privilege under Gatidhara Scheme. The cheque amount was debited from the account of the complainant in spite of stop payment intimation. It is alleged that M/S Orientation Transport & Logistic Pvt. Ltd. is not authorized by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal in any manner for dealing with applicants / beneficiaries in Gatidhara Scheme. The O.P. Bank encashed the account payee cheque dated 14/11/2017 in favour of O.P.-1 in spite of knowing that drawers signature differ. Hence, the consumer complaint claiming Rs.40,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.8,000/- as litigation cost.
The O.P. has contested the case by filing W.V. wherein they have denied and disputed the material allegations of the complainant. The O.P. has also challenged the maintainability of the consumer case. The specific case of the O.P. is that the complainant did not intimate the Bank to stop payment of the subject cheque prior to 16/11/2017. The subject cheque was issued on 14/11/2017 in favour of M/S Orientation Transport & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and cleared on 16/11/2017. The belated RTI information dated 16/03/2018 obtained from the Secretary, West Bengal State Transport Corporation does not relate with the O.P. Bank. The complainant did not come before the Forum with clean hands as he admitted different signature on the subject cheque dated 14/11/2017. The cheque was presented for clearance, the specimen signature of the complainant compared with the signature on the cheque and they allowed to clear the cheque as the signature on the cheque is similar with Specimen Signature. There was no deficiency in service on their part.
In the light of the pleadings of the parties following points are came up for determination :- Does the complainant prove that on the part of the O.P. there was deficiency in service regarding clearance of cheque bearing No.019756 dated 14/11/2017 for Rs.40,000/-? Is the complainant consumer of the O.P. as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C. P. Act,1986? Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for? Decision with Reasons Point Nos. - 1 to 3 All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Both parties have adduced evidence on affidavit. They have also filed questionnaire and relied vis--vis relevant documents in support of their respective case. Both parties have also filed their Brief Notes of Arguments.
We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
It is an admitted position that the complainant had applied for purchase of a new car under Gatidhara Scheme introduced by the Govt. of West Bengal, Transport Department with subsidy though M/S Orientation Transport & Logistic Pvt. Ltd. (in short OTL) and issued an a/c payee cheque of Rs.40,000/- dated 14/11/2017 to OTL.
The first point that requires consideration in the matter is whether the complainant falls under the definition of consumer as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. In the instant case, the complainant and his daughter Subhadra Nandi are maintaining a regular savings bank account with the O.P. Bank since 02/08/2017 and the said fact has not been denied by them. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant and his daughter have been availing themselves of the services provided by the Bank and hence, they are definitely covered under the definition of consumers vis--vis the Bank.
The present case involves the drawers signature differ in the cheque No.019756 dated 14/11/2017 with the signature maintained by the Bank and despite of that the O.P. Bank encashed the said account payee cheque in favour of OTL.
Now, dealing with the main issue of encashment of the cheque in question, it has been stated by the O.P. Bank that the said cheque dated 14/11/2017 was encashed on 16/11/2017 as the signature appearing in the cheque match with the documents maintained in the record of the bank.
In their good judgement the official of the O.P. Bank honoured the cheque dated 14/11/2017.
Complainant did not file any application referring the cheque dated 14/11/2017 to the handwriting expert for opinion that the signature appearing in the cheque is genuine or not. It is true that the complainant submitted a prayer for stop payment of cheque No.019756 dated 14/11/2017 to the O.P. Bank on 20/11/2017 after expiry of three days from the date of clearance of the cheque. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant did not whisper the fact of stop payment of cheque in the complaint petition. Complainant was aware that signature appearing in the cheque No.019756 dated 14/11/2017 is different and the complainant should have intimate the Bank to stop payment immediately. Cheque was cleared on 16/11/2017 and stop payment request was submitted to the Bank of 20/11/2017.
Based on the foregoing discussions, it is held that the action of the officials of the O.P.
Bank in clearing the said cheque did not amount to deficiency in service on their part as the signature appearing in the cheque tally with the signatures maintained by the Bank. Thus, the Bank is held not liable to be penalized for clearance of the cheque. Thus, in the instant case being meritless, bogus and frivolous one required to be dismissed with cost for wasting of time of this Forum and causing harassment to the OP Bank. As a result, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Accordingly, all the points under determination are disposed of.
In the result, the case merit fails.
Hence, Ordered That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only out of aforesaid cost imposed the complainant 50 percent be paid to the OP and balance amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only be deposited in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account Unit-II within 45 days from today.
In case, complainant fails to deposit the aforesaid cost within the prescribed period, then he shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 5 percent per anuum till realization.
[HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Mahanty] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Sahana Ahmed Basu] MEMBER
Comments