MADHUBHAI R. PATEL vs State Bank of India

THIS First Appeal has been filed by the complainants against the order dated 27.8.93 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 11 of 1993. By the impugned order passed by the State Commission the complaint filed by the present appellants against the respondent-State Bank of India was dismissed. Briefly the facts of the case are that the eight complainants are Principal, teachers and other staff of Asian High School, Saraspur, Ahmedabad. According to the allegations in the complaint, salary of the complainants is paid through Account Payee Cheque by the Government of Gujarat through its Treasury Officer, Ahmedabad as per the directions of the District Education Officer every month in favour of opposite party No. 2-State Bank of India, Saraspur Branch, Ahmedabad. The complainants'' salary cheque amounting to Rs. 24,406/- for the month of November, 1992 was issued by the District Treasury Officer. The said cheque was presented to the opposite party No. 2 on 22.12.92 alongwith the Bank statement stating names, account numbers and amounts to be deposited in respective accounts of the complainants. However, the complainant''s accounts were not credited with the salary amount upto 8.1.93. Vide letter dated 7.1.93 the complainants requested the Bank to credit their salary but they did not receive any reply. The complainants, therefore, filed the complaint before the State Commission claiming total amount of salary i.e. Rs.24,406/- with Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for each of complainants for the harassment caused to them and their family members. Rs. 2,000/- were claimed as costs. The grievance of the complainants was that they have given cheques to the third parties expecting the credit in their accounts by 25.12.92 and those cheques were liable to be dishonoured. They also suffered difficulties and hardship for making purchases of daily necessities and for paying school fees and medical treatment for their children.

ON being noticed, the Advocate admitted that salary cheque for Rs. 24,406/- was deposited with the Bank on 22.12.92. However, it was pleaded that due to disturbed conditions in Ahmedabad city the complainants were informed that clerical work of Ahmedabad city was paralysed so the cheque could not be sent for clearing and same would be sent for clearing when normal situating were restored. The clerical work of the opposite party-Bank is done by their Service Branch and due to disturbances in, Ahmedabad city cheques collected from 22.12.92 to 28.12.1992 were sent for clearing on 29.12.1992 but the Service Branch did not accept the cheques because the earlier cheques sent before that date were not returned from clearing house. The cheques were sent for clearing on 4.1.92 when normalcy was restored and the complainants were informed on 6.1.93 to that effect. Amount of Rs. 24,406/- was credited in the respective accounts of the complainants on 7.1.93. Some of the complainants withdraw their salary on 8.1.93. In short the opposite parties stated that due to. disturbed conditions in Ahmedabad city cheques could not be cleared. The State Commission accepted the plea of the Bank on the principle of "force majeure" and dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved with this order the complainants have filed this appeal.

Before proceeding further we may mention that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 9 days. The copy of the State Commission''s order was received by the complainants on 23.9.92 while the present appeal was filed on 1.11.92 i.e., beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act. The appellants have filed an application for condonation of delay. It is pleaded in the application that the appellants contacted their Advocate and provided necessary papers but the Advocate informed that the Original Complaint is in Gujarati so it should be translated into English. Therefore, it was translated and it took time. The appellants are Principal and some teachers of a school and therefore, much time should not have been taken in translation. The appellants further stated that the Advocate prepared the Appeal Memo and case papers on 21.10.93 and took signature of appellants but one of the appellants i.e., No. 7 Mr. M.A. Joshi was on E.L. from 16.10.93 to 26.10.93 for religious ceremony Navratri and so he was not available in Ahmedabad city. The said appellant was available on 26.10.93 and his signature was obtained on 26.10.93. We are of the view that this is not a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The address of the said appellant must be available with the school authorities and one of the appellants could have gone to his place to obtain his signature on the Appeal Memo. It is further averred that no railway ticket was available even in waiting list accommodation to send representative before this Commission for filing the appeal. We are of the opinion that delay in filing of the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed as time barred.

ON merits also the complainants were not entitled to any relief. In the complaint, it is admitted that in the relative days there was disturbances in Ahmedabad City. Therefore, due to disturbed conditions in the city of Ahmedabad the Bank could not resume its normal work and hence the delay occurred in getting the cheque cleared and in crediting the amount of the cheque in the accounts of various complainants. The complainants have admitted that generally the Bank cleared the salary cheque of the complainants on the 3rd day of the deposit of the cheque. Thus, in such circumstances it can be said that in the present case the delay in crediting the salary amounts in the account of various complainants was unintentional. It was due to reasons beyond the control of the Bank. Hence, there was no deficiency in service rendered by the respondent-Bank. In the light of above observations, we dismiss the present petition. We make no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed. _______________