Jyoti Sankar Mohanty, S/o Late Samrendra Nath Mohanty - Complainant(s)


The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nua Bazar Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sri D. Nayak & others

19 Dec 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/67/2018
( Date of Filing : 15 Oct 2018 )
1. Jyoti Sankar Mohanty, S/o Late Samrendra Nath Mohanty
At- Jaganathpur, Po/Ps/Dist- Bhadark- 756100
1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nua Bazar Branch
At/Po- Naya Bazar, Ps/Dist- Bhadrak- 756100
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Panikoili Branch
At/Po/Ps- Panikoili, Dist- Jajpur- 755043
3. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India
Local Head Office- 111, Pandit Jawaharlal Neheru Marg, Bhubaneswar
4. M/s Panda Traders
At/Po/Ps- Panikoili, Dist- Jajpur
Dated : 19 Dec 2023
Final Order / Judgement


Consumer Complaint No. 67 of 2018.

                                                                                                                                        Date of hearing     :   28.11.2023.

Date of order                 :   19.12.2023.

Dated the 19th day of December 2023.

Jyoti Sankar Mohanty,                                  

S/o:-Late Samrendra Nath Mohanty,

          At:-Jagannathpur, Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak-756100. 

                                                                                      …………..  Complainant.


  1. The  Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Nuabazar Branch.

At/Po:-Nuabazar, P.S/Dist:- Bhadrak-756100.

  1. The  Branch Managar

State Bank of India, Panikoili Branch.

At/Po/PS:- Panikoili, Dist:- jajpur-755043.

  1. The  Regional Manager,

State Bank of India

Local Head Office :- III ,

Pandit Jawaharlal Neheru Marg,


  1. M/s. Panda Traders,

At/Po/PS:-Panikoili, Dist:- Jajpur- 755043.        .…………Opposite parties.

P R E S E N T S.

          1.  Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,

          2.  Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.

                   Counsels appeared for the parties.

For the Complainant       :  Sri Debasis Nayak, Advocate & Associates,

For the O.P.No.1&2                   :  Sri Jaminikanta Nayak, Advocate,

For the O.P. No. 3            :  Ex-parte.

For the O.P. No. 4                     :  Sri A.K. Pani, Advocate & Associates.

                                                J U D G M E N T.


          In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Fact of the case is that, the complainant had a Current Account No. 36535734095 in O.P.No.1’s Branch since long. The O.Ps Bank is a Nationalized Bank& it functions as per the direction & guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. During the course of business, the complainant had issued Cheque No. 589696, dtd.20.03.2018 of State Bank of India, Nua Bazar Branch, Bhadrak for the amount of Rs.5,49,000/- (Rupees five lakhs forty nine thousand) only to the O.P.No.4 i.e. M/s. Panda Traders, Panikoili as security & purchased cement and other construction materials. The aforesaid cheque was just pledged as security & the complainant has paid all the outstanding dues at regular intervals prior to 18.06.2018. Since there was no dues left as the complainant has paid all the dues prior to 20.06.2018. So, the complainant requested to O.P.No.4 i.e. M/s. Panda Traders to return the Cheque No.589696, dated 20.03.2018 of State Bank of India, Nua Bazar Branch & O.P.No.4 assured to return the same. But suddenly on 22.06.2018 the complainant received a message about transfer of said cheque amount by Cheque No.589696, dtd.20.03.2018. The said cheque was issued on 20.03.2018 which was valid for 3 months. While the cheque is invalid & not negotiable then in how & in what circumstances the aforesaid cheque amount has been transferred to the account of O.P.No.4 on 22.06.2018. It is out & out willful negligence, unfair trade practice, deficiency in service & default of O.P.No.2 inconvenience with O.P.No.4 put the complainant a loss of Rs.5,49,000/-. Complainant has met O.P.No.1 & 2 & 3 and requested them to credit the aforesaid amount in the current account without any result.  The complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to credit the cheque amount i.e. Rs.5,49,000/- with interest from 22.06.2018 till realization to the current account of the complainant.

The O.P.No.1 & 2 submit that, the complainant has got his current account at S.B.I. Nuabazar Branch & complainant operating the same regularly. O.P. No.4 has got his account at Panikoili S.B.I. Branch. O.P.No.4 on dtd.22.06.2018 presented the cheque bearing No.589696 for an amount of Rs.5,49,000/- to withdraw into his account & the said cheque was issued by the complainant on dtd.26.03.2018. As the cheque was genuine one & the signature matched with the signature of account holder & as there is no other legal bar to disburse the cheque amount the said amount was transferred to O.P.No.4’s account. On this act there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the O.P.No.1 or 2. On this transaction the O.P.No.3 had no role & he has been impleaded only for harassment to Bank officials. For sake of argument if it is to be believed that the complainant had business transaction with O.P.No.4 & he had placed that cheque before O.P.No.4 for security & the complainant paid his dues to O.P.No.4 & the alleged cheque was issued on 20.03.2018, what prevented him to obtain that cheque from O.P.4 after clearing his dues, & if O.P.4 did not return that cheque what prevented him to inform the Bank to stop the payment on that cheque & what prevented him to take proper recourse to return back that cheque although the complainant is well aware about banking procedures. If he had issued the cheque on 20.03.2018 what prevented him to inform Bank to stop the payment or about issuance of cheque on dated 20.03.2018 when the time limit completed.

O.P.No.3 set ex-parte on order No.5, 05.01.2019.

O.P.No.4 states that, the complainant being a contractor was purchasing construction materials from O.P.No.4 on credit basis.  The complainant issued a cheque bearing No.589696 dtd.26.03.2018 for Rs.5,49,000/- of S.B.I. Naya Bazar Branch, towards repayment of outstanding arrear dues of O.P.4. After issuance of cheque there was no sufficient balance in the account, to honour the cheque.  After repeated request of O.P.4 the complainant requested the O.P.4 to deposit Rs.1,13,000/- in his account so that the cheque could be honoured by the Bank.  Accordingly the O.P.4 transferred Rs.1,13,000/- to the account of complainant, through cheque No.445261 of S.B.I., Panikoili Branch.  Thereafter as there was sufficient balance in complainant’s account the O.P.4 presented the cheque No.589696 dtd.26.03.2018 at SBI Panikoili Branch & cheque was honoured as per the guidelines of R.B.I. Hence no illegality or arbitrary committed by the O.Ps by allowing withdrawal of amount of cheque, as the cheque was valid & negotiable on dtd.22.06.2018.

Having heard the rival contentions and materials available on record, this commission finds that the complainant has averred that on the cheque date is 20/03/2018, but when the cheque was presented by OP No.4, he date on it was 26/03/2018. The complainant files a zerox copy of the cheque no.- 589696 wherein the date appear is 20/03/2018. OP No.1,2 &3 has also filed the zerox copy of the cheque no. 589696 with date 26/03/2018. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest how the dates are different in both those zerox copies of cheque no. 589696. If by 20/06/2018, the complainant has repaid all his dues he must have obtained due receipts against such monetary transactions. There is nothing in the record to suggest that by 20/06/2018 there was no outstanding of the complainant toward OP No.4. There is also nothing in the record to substantiate his claim that the complainant has asked back his cheque no. 589696 from the OP No.4. Last but not the least, the complainant could have very easily directed its bank to stop payment against the cheque no. 589696. There is no evidence on this score also. In lack of any evidence, it hard for the commission to persuade itself to believe in the contention of the complainant that OP No.4 has interpolated the date from 20/03/2018 to 26/03/2018 and used a stale cheque for illegal gain with the connivance of OP No.1 & 2.As the cheque date is 26/03/2018, these OPs have realized a cheque within its validity. In the present scenario, this commission finds no deficiency in service on part of these OPs.

O R D E R.

In the result, the complaint be & same is disallowed. No order of cost to any party. This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 19th day of December 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.


Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.