KANHAIYA TIWARI S/O. LATE DHARMDEO TIWARI vs MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA

This revision petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.8.2016 passed in first appeal No. 203 of 2011 by Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred as ''the State Commission'') whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the bank holding that there was deficiency on the part of the Bank and at the time of limitation, filing the time barred complaint.

The brief facts are that the complainant, Kanhaiya Tiwari, received a cheque from LIC for the amount of Rs.7040/- which he deposited in his S/B account at State Bank of India (OP) on 15.6.2007. The bank credited the same in his account on next day. On 19.6.2007, he withdrew Rs.7,000/- from his account. In the meantime, the son of the complainant sent Rs.14,500/- to the complainant''s account upon which the complainant visited the bank for withdrawing the same amount but it was learnt that the OP/Bank debited the cheque amount of Rs. 7040/- from Rs.14,500/-. The complainant enquired the matter with the Bank officials. They told that the amount was debited towards the loan which he availed and the bank has deducted the same without any interest. Upon further inquiry, the bank officers told that LIC''s cheque was unpaid. Therefore, they have deducted the cheque amount of Rs.7040/-. The complainant and his son asked the bank to return the cheque, which was unpaid but at the pretext of one or the other, the bank never returned the cheque and the bank officials scolded the petitioner and his son.

Due to illiteracy of the complainant, the complainant failed to file a complaint within two years. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siwan (in short, ''the District Forum'') seeking compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. The OP resisted the complaint and took the main ground that the complaint was filed after considerable delay. It was beyond the period of limitation. The District Forum held the Bank guilty for deficiency in service and allowed the complaint directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 7040/-, the cheque amount alongwith Rs.5,000/- as a compensation and Rs.2,000/- as a costs.

Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP filed an appeal before the State Commission, Patna. The State Commission set aside the order of District Forum on the ground of limitation i.e. there was delay in filing the complaint, which was not condoned by the District Forum. Hence, the complaint was dismissed as a time barred. Hence, the complainant filed this instant revision petition.

Heard the arguments from authorized representative i.e. son of the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondent despite service. The respondent is proceeded against ex parte. The authorized representative argued that there was deficiency in service committed by the OP/Bank. Bank has not returned the cheque if it was not honoured by the drawee bank. The officials of OP behaved rudely with him.

Perused the orders of District Forum and the State Commission. In the written version filed before the District Forum, the OP has contended that the cheque has already been credited in complainant''s account by the bank on 18.7.2007 and the complainant was fully aware of the said fact but, filed the complaint after expiry of two years, It was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On 16.6.2007, the Bank as per bank norms immediately credited the cheque amount of Rs.7040/- in his account by adopting DDP process but the cheque in question was unpaid, hence, it was returned back by the drawee bank. Therefore, OP/Bank debited the cheque amount of Rs.7040/- from the complainant''s account on 18.7.2007 as per banking norms. Thus, there was no deficiency. The same was duly communicated to the complainant to his full satisfaction. Even with due clarification from OP, the complainant filed complaint on frivolous and vexatious grounds after expiry of a period of limitation.

After thoughtful consideration, the main question is why the bank retained the unpaid cheque with them? It is an admitted fact that the complainant deposited one cheque for Rs.7040/- in his account with OP bank. The cheque was returned back by the drawee bank after two days. Under such circumstances, why the OP had not informed either to the complainant or his son about return of the cheque in question. It was the bounden duty of the bank to intimate the customers about their failed transactions. The complainant was a poor, illiterate person, who depends on the frequent withdrawal of money from the bank. The customer was kept in the dark. The complainant''s son deposited Rs.14,500/-. Therefore, the complainant approached the bank in the pretext that there will be sufficient balance to withdraw Rs.14,500/- but due to short of balance in the account, the complainant failed to withdraw Rs.14,500/-. It was because OP had debited Rs.7040/- from the SBI account without the knowledge of complainant i.e. the account holder. Thus, it was the continuous cause of action. I hereby do not think that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation. Thus, it was maintainable. Regarding the compensation awarded by the District Forum, it is not clear whether the complainant had received the maturity amount from the LIC. There is no evidence as such in this regard. But certainly there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank and the complainant deserves compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant.

On the basis of foregoing discussion, I set aside the impugned order and modify the order of District Forum to the limited extent that, the OP shall pay only Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and the costs within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum till its realization. There shall be no order as to costs.