Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh          ……….President

The Complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps. under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and praying for the following order / reliefs :-

1. Directions against the O.Ps. to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant.
2. Directions against the O.Ps. to refund the entire amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the Complainant.
3. Directions against the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only toward the mental agony suffered by the Complainant.
4. Directions against the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only towards cost of the legal proceedings.
5. To pass such order/ orders which the Complainant is entitled as per law.

BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. That, the Complainant is residing within the jurisdiction of this Commission, he has a bank account with the OPs being A/C No. 32252226728 with the OP No. 1 bank and on 27.08.2014 the Complainant issued a cheque being no. 354105 for the sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Mr. Abdul Kader Ali which the Complainant deposited in the drop box kept inside the bank premises of the OP No. 1 (Annexure I)
2. That, the Complainant received an information from the OP No. 1 after few days that the cheque has been encashed from the cash counter of the OP No. 1 and immediately the Complainant talked with the officials of the OPs but they did not provide him any appropriate response and the officials  OP No. 1 denied the fact that, the Complainant ever deposited the cheque in the drop box (Copy of Letter as Annexure II)
3. That, the Complainant on several occasions conveyed his grievance but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant.
4. That, the Complainant had put a lot of faith in the services provided by the OPs and paid his hard earned money to them but they have breached his faith and repeated incompetence displayed by the OPs have caused immense suffering and mental frustration.
5. That, the irresponsible OPs and fraudulent behavior has caused the Complainant a great deal of mental trauma and harassment and the representative of the OPs have leveled frivolous allegations against the Complainant which caused him a great deal of mental agony.
6. That, the Complainant tried to resolve the matter amicably by sending a letter dated 18.10.2014 to the OPs but of no result. (Copy of letter and courier receipt are Annexure II & III).
7. That, the actions of the OPs are liable under section 2 (1) (g) of the C.P Act 1986.
8. That, the Complainant is a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act who availed the services of the OPs which turned out to be inefficient.
9. This Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant as well as this Commission has territorial jurisdiction also.
10. That, the cause of action is continuing till date as the OPs have not taken any action on Complainant’s grievance.

Notice was sent from this Commission on the OPs. On receipt of notice the OPs have appeared before this Commission, filed written version and denied all the material allegations of the Complainant. In The written version the OPs have stated that, the case of the Complainant is not maintainable in law as well as fact/ the Complainant has no right to file the complaint/ this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint/ the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties/ the complaint is barred by the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiesces / this complaint is barred by principle of limitation and negligence/ there is no sufficient ground to file this complaint/ the Complainant has filed this case with mala fide, motivated and misconceived intention / there is no cause of action against the OPs / the Complaint is not supported by any affidavit and verification. By filing the W/ V, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case. The OPs have also stated that the Complainant is not a consumer under section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the statement of Para No. 1 of the complaint is mater of record, Para No. 2 & 3 are true as well as partly false. The OPs have stated that, the Complainant is an account holder under A/C No. 32252226728  and the Complainant issued a cheque in favour of Mr. Abdul Kader Ali vide cheque No. 354105 dated 27.08.2014 and  subsequently  Mr. Abdul Kader Ali encashed the said cheque by depositing the same and by showing PAN Card . They have also stated, that the Complainant did not deposit the cheque into the drop box kept inside the bank premises. The OPs have also stated that the contents of the Paragraph No. 4 is partly true and partly false and they stated that as per instruction of the Complainant, money was disbursed in favour of Mr. Abdul Kader Ali and they denied that, the Complainant has deposited the cheque into the drop box and they gave reply on receiving of each letter of the Complainant. The OPs have denied the contents of Paragraph  No. 5 & 9 and also stated that contents of Paragraph No. 6,7,8 are matter of record. The OPs have further stated that the Complainant did not suffered for any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of the written version of the OPs including the documents, the following points are to be considered by this Commission.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERARTION 

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 1986?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of her Complaint?

                   Decision with Reasons

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

The Complainant in order to prove the case filed written deposition in the form of an affidavit. The Complainant has also filed some documents as Annexure I to III. In the written deposition the Complainant has corroborated the contents of the complaint and has stated that he issued a cheque in favour of Mr. Abdul Kader Ali for the sum of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on 27.08.2014. He further stated that he himself had deposited the said cheque in the drop box kept inside the bank premises of the OP No. 1. In the written evidence, he further stated that after few days there from he got an information from the OP No. 1 as if the cheque was encashed by the said Mr. Abdul Kader Ali but he on several occasions informed the bank officials by stating that he himself had deposited the said cheque in the drop box of the OP No. 1 but their officials had denied the same who disclosed as if Mr. Abdul Kader Ali by presenting the cheque with the OP No. 1 and the said cheque was encashed in his favour. In the written evidence the Complainant has stated that on several occasions he requested the bank officials for settlement of the same, even he wrote several letters in favour of the OPs for redressal of his grievance but of no result. The Complainant in his written deposition has further stated that, he has sufficient cause of action for filing the case as there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

To falsify the case of the complainant the OPs have filed written evidence in the form of an affidavit where the OP State Bank of India denied the material allegations of the complainant. In the written evidence the OPs have specifically stated that the cheque was presented before the OP No. 1 for encashment and the said cheque was honored and the sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given to Mr. Abdul Kader Ali on proper satisfaction through perusal of PAN Card which was submitted by that Mr. Abdul Kader Ali. In the evidence the OP State Bank of India has further corroborated its written version who also stated that the complainant has admitted the disbursement of sum of money in favour of Mr. Abdul Kader Ali.

The Complainant has also filed Written Notes of Argument. In the Written notes of argument the Complainant has specifically stated that he has been able to prove the case against the OPs not only through filing of written evidence but also by producing several documents before this Commission in support of his case. He further argued that the Complainant himself had deposited the cheque in the drop box which can easily be verified through the CCTV of the OP No. 1 but the officials of the OPs have paid no heed with the grievance of the Complainant. It is also argument of the Complainant that, the CCTV footage of the SBI, Champasari Branch was collected by the Complainant in which it is clearly visible that the Complainant deposited the cheque in the drop box but without considering the footage of the CCTV of the OP No. 1 they denied the allegation of the Complainant.

The OPs have also filed written notes of argument and denied the entire allegations of the Complainant. In the written notes of argument the State Bank of India has stated that the Complainant has filed this case on some false allegations though the Complainant in his complaint as well as written notes of argument has admit that the cheque was issued in favour of Mr. Abdul Kader Ali and Mr. Abdul Kader Ali encashed the cheque amount by producing his PAN Card but the complainant did not implead Mr. Abdul Kader Ali as a party to this case and that’s why this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. He further argued that, to falsify the case of the complainant the OPs have filed written evidence and also filed the documents including the photocopy of cheque as well as photocopy of PAN Card bearing no. EFSPS3587L.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the written complaint, written version of the OPs, documents filed by the parties, written notes of argument of both the parties it is admitted fact that the complainant was an account holder of the OP No. 1 Bank. It is also admitted fact that the complainant issued one cheque for the sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Mr. Abdul Kader Ali. Only denial by the complainant is that the sum of Rs. 50,000/- was not given to that Mr. Abdul Kader Ali which the OP Bank stated that, they have already disbursed the said sum of money to Mr. Abdul Kader Ali.

Now let us see how far the complainant has been able to prove its case and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for or let us see how far the OPs have been able to falsify the case of the complainant.

From the record it reveals that the cheque was issued in favour of Mr. Abdul Kader Ali by the complainant. The Bank authority through documents has stated that, the sum of Rs. 50000/- was given to Mr. Abdul Kader Ali to honor the cheque which was issued by the complainant. The complainant in his complaint as well as in his evidence alleged that, the sum of Rs. 50000/- was not given to Mr. Abdul Kader Ali. But to substantiate its claim the complainant he did not file any documents or did not file any evidence by that Mr. Abdul Kader Ali. From the record it reveals that, though the complainant claims that he issued the cheque in favour of Mr. Abdul Kader Ali but that Mr. Abdul Kader Ali has not been impleaded as a party of this case. On the other hand the OP Bank has filed the photocopy of PAN Card being no. EFSPS3587L and has claimed that the sum of Rs. 50000/- was given to Mr. Abdul Kader Ali after satisfying his name from verification of his PAN Card.

From the record it also revealed that though the OPs in their written version, as well as in its evidence have specifically stated the fact of encashment of sum of Rs. 50000/- to Mr. Abdul Kader Ali after verification of his name from his PAN Card but the complainant neither file any questionnaires nor challenge the PAN Card which was filed by the OP Bank Authority.

Considering all, we are of the view that, in order to arrive at a just decision of a case the complainant has failed to substantiate the case by making Mr Abdul Kader Ali as a party of this case . We are also of the view that for the proper adjudication of this case presence of that Mr Abdul Kader Ali was necessary . But the the complainant did not implead him as a party of this case  knowing fully well aware that he was a necessary party.  Accordingly we are also of the view that the complainant has not been able to prove this case against the OPs by producing valid evidence.

Hence,

               It is therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the instant Consumer Case being is No 174/2014 is herby dismissed on contest but without any cost.                      

 Let s copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.