1. This complaint case has been filed against the complainant who illegally and arbitrarily not made payment of bill no. 305/16-17 bearing advice no. 4554 dt. 28.02.17 amounting Rs 43,575/- in gross negligency and deficiency in services causing mental tension, agony, harassment, injury, loss and damages to the complainant.

2. The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant is Law Book seller and sold Law Books to Civil court, Dumka for which bill no. 305/16-17 bearing advise no. 4554 dt. 28.02.17 instrument no. 3346 dt. 28.02.17 amounting to Rs 43,575 was passed by the competent authority of the Civil Court, Dumka for payment of Rs 43,575 in favor of the complainant.

The O.P. No. being the Treasury Officer also passed the bill allowing payment of the Bill amounting Rs 43,575 in favor of the complainant. That the complainant has got Bank a/c at Bank of India (O.P No. 1) being account no. 495830110000011.

3. The said bill was deposited on 07.03.17 in the said account no. 495830110000011 lying with the O.P. No. 1 for its collection and payment in the complainant’s said account. The O.P. No. 1 sent the said bill for collection on 17.03.17 before the concerning bank, State Bank of India, the O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 refused to make payment of the said bill being instrument no. 3346 and returned the same to the concerning Bank vide requisition dt. 17.03.17 mentioning therein, “Instrument out dated state“.  The O.P. No. 1 on 17.03.17 on one hand credited the amount of the instrument no. 3346 in his account and on the same day subsequently debited same amount from his account mentioning there as rejected. In this way the O.P. No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally cause negligency and deficiency in services and rejected the bill instrument of Rs 43,575 on the imaginary plea of instrument outdated state though the bill instrument was valid, effective and operative in law was in force on the day of presenting the same before O.P. No. 1 for its collection and payment.    

4. The O.P. No.1 and 2 jointly and severally caused mental tension, agony, harassment, injury, loss and damages to the complainant for which the complainant is also entitled to get adequate and suitable amount of compensation.    

5. It is further submitted that complainant send letters, reminders, legal notice dt. 10.04.18 served on O.P. No. 1 but the O.P. No. 1 did not pay hid on the same. The O.P No. 3 has been made party to this proceeding as his presence is necessary to resolve the problems. That the complainant is consumer as defined under the act.

6. The complainant has claimed following amounts :-

1. Principal amount of Rs 43,575
2. Amount of compensation Rs 50,000
3. Cost of litigation Rs 20,000

Total Rs 1,13,575 and also entitled to get interest @ 18% p.a. on the awarded amount.

7.  The cause of action for this case has arose on 07.03.17 on which date the bill instrument was deposited with O.P. No. 1 for collection and payment and also on 17.03.17 the same day was credited and debited in the account of the complainant and on 10.04.18 when a legal notice was sent to the O.P.

8. The following reliefs has been claimed by the complainant : -

1. To direct the O.P. No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to make payment of bill instrument amount of Rs 43,575 to the complainant.
2. To direct the O.P. No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to make payment of compensation amount of Rs 50,000 to the complainant.
3. To direct the O.P. No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to make payment of Rs 20,000 as litigation cost to the complainant.
4. To direct the O.P. No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to make payment of interest @ 18% p.a. on the awarded amount to the complainant.
5. Any other relief or reliefs for which the complainant is entitled may also be granted.     

9. The O.P. No. 1 Bank of India, Dumka Branch has not appeared in spite of several notices being sent to him. As such, vide order sheet dt. 02.08.19 the case was proceeded against it as exparte.

10.  The O.P. No. 2 State Bank of India, main branch, Dumka after receiving notice sent a letter on 06.04.19 to this commission stating therein that the case is related to Bank of India and SBI has no concern with this case. As such this may be sent to the Bank of India  and not appeared before this commission to contest this case.

11. The O.P. No. 3, Treasury Officer, Dumka appeared on 29.04.19 and filed the show cause stating there in that the complaint petition as formed in its present form is not maintainable against the O.P. No. 3. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 3 Treasury Officer, Dumka would like to draw Hon’ble Forum’s kind attention that a bill of Rs 43,575 bearing the bill no. 305/16-17 relating to the account no. 495830110000011 of Pathak Law House was placed by the registrar, civil court, Dumka on 28.02.17 before the O.P. No. 3 for passing the bill and after proper scrutinizing from accountant level it was found correct and the O.P. No. 3 who being the treasury officer, Dumka has passed the bill in due time on the same date, i.e; on 28.02.17.

12.  The messenger of the Civil Court, Dumka has received the aforesaid bill with advice no. 4554/28.02.17 on the same day i.e; on 28.02.17. As such O.P. No. 3 is not responsible for any lapse of the said bill amount. It is very clear from the contents of the complaint petition also the complainant sought his relief against the O.P. No. 1,2 and 3 is not liable for any lapse of bill amount. As such the complaint made by the complainant is not maintainable against O.P. No. 3.

13. The main point for the determination in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as claimed!

                                    Findings

The complainant in support of his case has filed some documentary evidence which are as follows : -

Exhibit 1 – is the photocopy of bill depositing form dt. 07.03.17 of bill no. 305/16-17 advice no. 4554 dt. 28.02.17 in the account no. 495830110000011 in the Bank of India.

Exhibit 2 – is the photocopy of allotment details regarding the bill amount.

Exhibit 3 – is the photocopy of return memo of State Bank of India dt. 17.03.17.

Exhibit 4 – is the photocopy of fully voucher contingent bill.

Exhibit 5 – is the letter written by the complainant to the Branch Manager of Bank of India, Dumka Branch dt. 20.11.17.

Exhibit 6 – is the letter dt. 26.01.18 written by the complainant to the Branch Manager of Bank of India, Dumka Branch.

Exhibit 7 – is the letter dt. 06.04.18 written by the complainant to the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Dhanbad.

Exhibit 8 – is the legal notice dt. 10.04.18 from the complainant to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Dumka Branch.

Apart from that no other evidence has been adduced on behalf of the complainant.

14. The O.P. has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of the case.

15.  Heard the Learned Counsel of both the parties and also perused the case record, evidences and documents adduced on behalf of the parties. From going through the show cause of O.P. no. 3 which is Treasury Officer, Dumka and also complaint petition on page 6 it is very much clear and apparent that the complainant has not sought any relief against O.P. No. 3. The complainant in his complaint petition has clearly mentioned that it has made a part the Treasury Officer in this proceeding only because his presence is necessary to resolve the problem.

16.  Apparently no relief has been claimed by the complainant against O.P. No. 3. As such, the O.P. No. 3 is hereby exempted from the liabilities of this case.

17.  So far as O.P. No. 2 State Bank of India is concerned although he has simply sent a letter in compliance of summon of this commission mentioning therein that this SBI has no concern with this case. It is related with Bank of India. And has not appeared before this court. But going through entire case record it appears that the bill instrument amounting Rs 43,575 which was deposited by the complainant in his account which was in the Bank of O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. No. 1 sent the same detail for collection to O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 vide his return instrument, i.e; Exhibit 3 dishonored the instrument stating therein that instrument is outdated state. The main point for the determination in this case is that who is responsible for the instrument outdated state.

18.  As per Banking Rules, any instrument presented for the collection must be within 15 days as it passed from treasury. As per complaint petition, the bill no. 305/16-17 bearing advice no. 4554 dt. 28.02.17 amounting Rs 43,575 was passed by the Treasury Officer, Dumka O.P. no.3 on 28.02.17 and thereafter receiving the said passed bill the complainant deposited the said instrument on 07.03.17 in his account no. 495830110000011 with O.P. No. 1 for collection on 17.03.17 before the State Bank of India, O.P. No. 2. The O.P. no. 2 refused to make the payment of the said bill instrument no. 3346 and return the same to the concerning Bank vide requisition no. 17.03.17 mentioning therein as instrument outdated state.

19.  Exhibit 1 which is deposit slip clearly supports this fact that the complainant deposited the said instrument in his account on 07.03.17 and from perusal of Exhibit 3 which is return memo of State Bank of India dt. 17.03.17 has clearly mentioned that instrument outdated state for the assigned reason of refusal of the instrument and as per allegation in the complaint petition it is clearly mentioned that the O.P. No. 1 sent the said bill for collection on 17.03.17 to the State Bank of India, i.e; O.P. no. 2 and the State Bank of India on the same day, i.e; 17.03.17 return the said instrument with requisition dt. 17.03.17 which is Exhibit 3.

20. Apparently, the instrument bill was presented by the complainant who is Bank of India, O.P. No. 1 valid and effective and operative time, i.e; 15 days from the passing of the bill O.P. no. 3 and O.P. No. 1 sent the same for collection and payment to O.P. no. 2 on 17.03.17and the instrument was rejected by the O.P. No. 2 saying that instrument outdated state. Apparently the O.P. No. 1 was negligent in sending the bill instrument for collection and payment to O.P. no. 2, i.e; SBI, main branch, Dumka.

21. The bill was made by the O.P. No.1 and due to negligent and deficient act of the O.P. No.1 the bill instrument was rejected by the O.P. No. 2 and the complainant sustained injury and loss.

22.  From the above discussion, it is apparent that O.P. No. 2, i.e; SBI, main Branch, Dumka was not negliegent or deficient in his act rather he acted promptly as soon as he received the bill instrument for clearance and payment on 17.03.17 and on the same day he return the instrument bill to the O.P. No. 1 with return memo. I find that O.P. No.2 acted actively, promptly and without delay      and he cannot be held liable for any negligency or deficiency in his services.

23. Further going through the evidences adduced on behalf of the complainant, i.e; Exhibit 1, 2, 3 and 4 it is very much clear that the bill instrument was valid, effective, operative in law and was in force on the day of presenting same before O.P. No. 1 for its collection and payment. It is O.P. No.1 Bank of India, Dumka Branch was negligent in sending the bill for collection and payment to the O.P. No. 2. O.P. No.2 return the same bill in his possession on 17.03.17 while the collection and payment period is 15 days. Bill was passed on 28.02.17 and was presented for collection and payment on 17.03.17 which was outdated. For this only O.P. no. 1 Bank of India is responsible and liable.

24.  Apart from that the complainant has sent several notice which is exhibit 5,6,7 and also legal notice Exhibit 8 to the O.P. No. 1 regarding his payment of the bill instrument but O.P. No.1 has not paid the same amount.

25.  From the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that O.P. No. 1, i.e; Bank of India is responsible for the loss sustained, damages, mental tension and harassment to the complainant. It is therefore, we

                                      Ordered

                   That O.P. No.1, i.e; Bank of India, Dumka Branch is hereby directed to make payment of bill instrument of Rs 43,575/- to the complainant. The O.P. No. 1, i.e; Bank of India is also directed to make payment of compensation of Rs 50,000/- to the complainant for the loss, damages, mental agony caused to the complainant. O.P. No. 1, i.e; Bank of India is hereby directed to make payment of Rs 20,000/- as a litigation cost to the complainant and also to make payment of interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount to the complainant from the filing up of the case till its payment.

                    All the above payments should be made within 45 days from the date of this order by the O.P. no.1 to the complainant.

                                  Let a copy of this order be served to both the parties free of cost. Let this document be deposited in the record room and to be shown on the website of the commission.