Dt. of filing – 19/12/2017
Dt. of Judgement – 04/12/2018
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, President.
This petition of complaint is filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Smt. Manjuri Dasgupta alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party ( referred as OP hereinafter ) namely The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Garia Branch and impleading Sree Pratik Dutta as proforma Opposite Party.
Facts in brief are that the complainant, being an account holder of the A/C being No. 0143010327665 of United Bank of India, Garia Branch since 20.09.2013 issued a cheque dated 17.12.2015 amounting Rs.2800/- in favour of her son-in-law namely Pratick Dutta ( proforma OP herein) but on deposit of the said cheque same was dishonoured on the ground of ‘Funds insufficient’ and an amount of Rs.105/- was deducted from the A/C of the complainant on 21.12.2015 towards penalty for having insufficient fund despite the fact that the A/C was equipped with sufficient fund to honour the cheque. The complain ant has further stated that on 17.12.2015 the said A/C. Of the complainant had balance amount of Rs.3385.91 which was sufficient to honour the cheque amounting to Rs. 2800/-. So being aggrieved by such act of OP, complainant sent a notice dt. 14.03.2016 through her Ld. Advocate to which the OP sent reply dt. 18.03.2016 which contained contradictory statements of OP and therefore, the complainant by filing the instant consumer complaint prays for direction upon the OP to pay Rs.20,00,000/-towards compensation and other reliefs.
Complainant annexed photocopy of letter issued by State Bank of India, Dishonoured cheque, Advocate’s letter dt. 14.03.2016 letter dt. 18.03.2016 issued by United Bank of India along with statement of account in respect of A/C. Being No. 0143010327565 with the complaint petition.
OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. OP has stated that on the basis of display on the service computer said cheque was dishonoured and such act of OP does not amount to deficiency in service since there was no intentional laches on the part of the OP and the matter was intimated by their reply dt. 18.03.2016. The OP has further stated that the complainant even did not raise any objection towards wrong entry of the amount. This consumer complaint after about one year from the date of the incident is filed only to gain wrongfully. So OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
The Proforma OP i.e. OP No.2 also filed written version.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant narrated the fact mentioned in the petition of complaint and specifically stated that Rs. 105/- had been deducted for cheque return and not for service charge.
Points for determination
- Whether there is deficiency in providing service on the part of the OP.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1 & 2 :
Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of brevity and convenience.
In this case it is not in dispute that the cheque amounting to Rs. 2800/- in favour of Proforma OP was issued by the complainant on 17.12.2015 but the same was dishonoured by the OP Bank on the ground of insufficient fund. The only contention which is raised by the OP is that ‘insufficient fund ‘has been done relying on the display on the service of the computer as regards the amount and there was no intentional latches on the part of the Opposite Party. According to OP that if the said amount of Rs.2800/- was allowed to withdraw, the cheque facility would have come to an end and that facility cannot be curtailed without written consent of the account holder.
It may be pertinent to point out that it appears from the pass book filed by the complainant that the complainant had balance amount of Rs. 3385.91 paise in her account. On 21.12.2015 an amount of Rs. 105/- has been deducted and it is mentioned therein local cheque return and the balance is shown Rs. 3280.91 paise. Even though it is submitted by the bank that the said amount of Rs. 105/- was deducted toward normal transaction of cheque or service charge. But the relevant entry in the pass book of the said account is very categorical that it was deducted towards cheque return. It is not clear whether the charge towards “return of cheque” and the charge in case of “cheque encashed”, are the same. No guideline is filed by the bank in this regard. In this case the difference is only of Rs.20/-. According to bank, if the cheque was allowed to be encashed than after deducting Rs.105/- which according to bank is service charge, the balance would have been Rs.480/- which is below the required minimum balance. So the service charge in either case was necessary to be brought before this Forum by the bank.
Apart from this, bank in the written version has stated that “ if the said amount of Rs.2800/- is allowed to withdraw, the cheque facility comes to an end and that facility cannot be curtailed without written consent of the account holder”. So these statement by the bank is sufficient indication of the fact that minimum balance can be curtailed with the consent of the account holder. If that be so than it becomes clear that it is not mandatory that in all situation there has to be minimum balance in the account.
OP Bank has not filed any guidelines in support of the contention that account with cheque facility should have balance of Rs. 500/- and under no circumstances a cheque can be encashed if the balance amount comes to below Rs.500/- . On the contrary, it is found that there were additional guidelines relating to saving bank accounts which provides that minimum balance in category of rural & semi urban branches with cheque facility was Rs. 500/-.It also provides that in case of default in maintaining minimum balance, the account need not be closed for want of minimum balance and cheques should not be retuned if sufficient funds are available for passing a cheque, even though the balance goes below the minimum required. However, the condition of the account should be brought to the notice of the customer in writing which should be persuasive in nature.
So, as per the guidelines referred to above cheque could have been encashed especially when the balance amount would have been Rs. 480/-, Rs.20/- only less to minimum balance of Rs. 500/- .Since no such mandatory provision is placed before this forum by the bank that under no situation a cheque could be encashed if minimum balance come to below Rs.500/- , complainant is entitled to compensation, as by dishonouring of cheque inspite of funds therein, OP bank has rendered deficiency in service. However, complainant is not entitled to compensation to the extent as prayed by her. Payee of the cheque in this case was complainant’s own son-in-law who must have come to know that the cheque amount was there in the account. He was a family member and not an outsider in whose eye the complainant’s prestige would be lowered down. Moreover even though delay of one year by itself cannot be a ground to discard the claim but the same is always a important factor to assess the compensation. So on consideration of entire facts and circumstances of this case, compensation of Rs.45,000/- would be justified. She is also entitled to litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-.
These points are thus answered accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/702/2017 is allowed on contest. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 45,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost within two months from the date of this order failing which the amount shall Carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum till realisation.
