03.11.2014

MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.

The instant Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 18.07.2013 passed by Ld. District Forum, Howrah, in Complaint Case being No. HDF 39 of 2013 allowing the same  ex parte against the Opposite Party with cost, directing the Opposite Party to credit the cheque amount of Rs. 50,000/- and  deducted   amount of Rs. 17/-  to the Account of the Complainant bearing No. 06262010033710 since the said amount was deposited by cheque by the Complainant on 13.09.2010 and  encashed on 14.09.2010, further directing the Opposite Party to pay interest  on the aforesaid amount @ 9% p.a. from 14.09.2010, further awarding the Complainant to get compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for prolonged harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost within 30 days from the date of the order failing which interest @ 9% p.a. would be levied on the unpaid amount till realization.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Opposite Party has preferred the instant Appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the Appellant did not get the opportunity to contest the matter before the Ld. District Forum and further the Ld. District Forum did not consider that the Appellant/ Bank sent the said cheque with Memo to the Respondent/ Complainant under certificate of posting on 26.10.2010 and that the Complainant filed the Complaint before the Ld. District Forum beyond prescribed time limit.

The case of the Complainant (Respondent herein) in brief is that he being an account holder in respect of an account bearing No. 06262010033710 with the Opposite Party Bank deposited a cheque bearing No. 190484  issued by M/s Daga Engineering of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 13.09.2010  which was encashed on 14.09.2010 crediting the said amount to the account of the Complainant, but, subsequently, on 15.09.2010 the same amount plus Rs 17/- was deducted from  the Complainant’s account even without sending back the dishonoured cheque. The Complainant made several correspondences to the O.P. including service of Advocate’s notices  dated 04.05.2012 requesting the O.p. to credit the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- plus Rs.17/- to his account but no fruitful result was yielded. However, the O.P. sent two letters dated 11.06.2012 and 26.06.2012 contending that the said cheque  was dishonoured on 15.09.2010  due to insufficient fund and returned to the Complainant along with a letter. Hence the Complainant filed the complainant before the Ld. District Forum praying for directions upon the O.P. to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.17/-  which was debited from his account with interest @ 12%  p.a. , to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.

Ld. District Forum recorded that inspite of service of notice the O.P. did not turn up.

In course of hearing of the Appeal Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Bank credited the amount inadvertently before clearance of the cheque but subsequently, the cheque was returned to the Respondent along with a letter issued under issue No. 8668 stating the above mentioned fact followed by debiting the credited amount.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, in course of hearing, has submitted that the Respondent deposited the said cheque on 13.09.2010 and on next date found that the cheque amount was credited to his account and therefore, he did not enquire about the matter subsequently nor did receive any information from the end of the Bank and thus he had no knowledge regarding dishonor of the said cheque till 2012 when he came to know that the credited cheque amount was further debited.

Having heard submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that, admittedly, the cheque amount was credited to the account of the respondent on 14.09.2010. The Appellant bank has submitted  that the amount was credited before clearance of the cheque and therefore debited subsequently and the same was informed to the Respondent. In support of his contention Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has filed the Photostat copy of “ Dak Despatch Register” which shows the sent items by the Appellant. But from the said copy it appears that under issue No. 8668 the letter has been issued to one Samarendra Mukherjee and not to Hriday Shaw, the Respondent. Infact, the Appellant has failed to show any document wherefrom it will be evident that the letter was served upon the Respondent.

Further, the complaint case was filed within the stipulated time from the date of knowledge of cause of action and thus not barred by time limit.

In view of that we are of opinion that the Ld. District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.

In the result, the appeal fails.

Hence, ORDERED that the instant appeal is dismissed on contest without cost.  The impugned judgment is affirmed.