AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant/respondent no.1 who had an account with the United Commercial Bank deposited a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn by one Abdul Kalam on Axis Bank, in the said account on 31.01.2011. As per the usual practice of the bank, when the aforesaid cheque was deposited, its amount was credited to the account of the complainant. The cheque however, was not honoured since its drawer Abdul Kalam stopped its payment. As a result, the bank did not receive the payment and consequently reversed the credit entry in the account of the complainant. This is also the case of the complainant that on 02.02.2011, she sought to withdraw Rs.20,000/- from another branch of the bank but the withdrawal slip was not honoured by the bank. This obviously happened because there was inadequate balance in the account for honouring the withdrawal slip for Rs.20,000/-. Being aggrieved from the reversal of the entry, the complainant/respondent no. 1 approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank which inter-alia stated that since the drawer had stopped the payment, the cheque was not honoured and consequently the withdrawal slip of Rs.20,000/- could not be paid. It is also stated in the reply that the cheque returned by the Axis Bank alongwith the cheque return memo was delivered to the agent of the complainant namely Mr. Ramakanta, on the basis of the oral instructions given by the complainant, after the deposit slip of the cheque was shown to the bank.
The District Forum vide its order dated 18.07.2012, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of the complaint, the respondent no. 1 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 29.01.2016, the State Commission directed the petitioner bank to pay a compensation quantified at Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent no. 1. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
There is absolutely no evidence of the cheque in question having been honoured by Axis Bank when presented to the said bank by United Commercial Bank which has since been renamed as UCO Bank. Therefore, the petitioner bank cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not crediting the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and by not honouring the withdrawal slip of Rs.20,000/-.
The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant was that since the dishonoured cheque and cheque return memo were not returned to the respondent, he could not file a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the drawer of the cheque and to this extent, the bank was deficient in rendering services to him. The case of the bank as noted earlier is that the cheque alongwith the cheque return memo was delivered to Mr. Ramakanta. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to para 15 of the additional affidavit filed by the complainant before the District Forum. The aforesaid affidavit, to the extent, it is relevant, reads as under:
That, one Ramakanta Lenka has sent by post the rejected cheque of Axis Bank, BBSR which speaks that the cheque was cleared up and also the returning memo of Rs.5,00,000/- against cheque no. 582255 of Axis Bank and the complainant has received the same. If the money belonging to Sk. Abdul Kalam against cheque no. available at Axis Bank, BBSR could not have been cleared up and entered in the account of complainant at UCO Bank, CRPF Branch, the Axis Bank, BBSR would not have been sent the returning memo.
It is thus evident that the complainant had actual received the cheque as well as the cheque return memo. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was prevented from filing a complaint on account of non-receipt of the cheque and the cheque return memo. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to believe that any other person would take the trouble of going to the bank and collecting the dishonoured cheque and then send it to the complainant, without any reason at all. The entire story of receiving the dishonoured cheque and the cheque return memo by post seems to be concocted, only with a view to justify the stand that the cheque and the cheque return memo were not collected by the petitioner through his representative.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, since the petitioner bank was not deficient in rendering services to the complainant, the impugned order passed by the State Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. The amount if any deposited by the petitioner bank shall be refunded to it alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.