AUTOCADE, ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of its complaint no. S.C. Case No. 26/0/05 by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, the State Commission ) by order dated 23.08.07, the original complainant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) The complaint was filed before the State Commission against the respondent Bank and its officers claiming a compensation of Rs.21 lakh alleging deficiency in service on their part in not honouring five cheques issued by the complainant, two in favour of Suprava Auto Centre for Rs.41,058/- and Rs.39,201, two in favour of Tribeni Auto for Rs.17,508/- and Rs.490/- and one in favour of Sandip Ganguly for Rs.2,053/- despite there being sufficient credit balance in the account of the complainant which it was holding with the respondent bank. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties thereby denying any deficiency in service on their part. It was, however, not denied that the five cheques issued by the complainant in favour of above-named parties were dishonoured but it was sought to be explained that on the date and time when the said five cheques were presented for being cleared, the complainant did not have the requisite and sufficient balance in its bank account. The State Commission, going by the pleas put forth by the parties, evidence and material brought on record, however, held that the complainant had failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and its Officers and accordingly, dismissed the complaint by observing as under:-

(3.) We have heard Mr. Chandrashekhar Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.R. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 4 and 5 and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the finding and the order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record. In this connection, the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the standard practice of the respondent no. 1 Bank and the facilities assured by it, the complainant was entitled to the clearance of the cheques deposited by it on the date of deposit of the cheques but this practice was not adhered to by the Bank in the present case. Learned Counsel for the appellant has specifically urged that two account payee cheques of the same bank, i.e., Standard Chartered Bank bearing no. 567993 for Rs.41,058/- and no. 567996 for Rs.37,754/-, i.e., both totaling to Rs.78,812/- issued on the same bank, were deposited by the complainant in the opposite party Bank on 09.08.04 but the proceeds of the said cheques were not credited to its account till 11.08.04. He further submits that if the amount of the said two cheques had been credited in time to the account of the complainant, the five cheques issued by it in favour of three different parties could not have been returned unpaid. He has also submitted that cheque no. 794042 dated 10.08.04 in the sum of Rs.41,058/- issued in favour of Suprava Auto Centre was cleared/honoured and accordingly, the balance amount in the appellant s account was shown as Rs.22,570/- on that date although the said cheque was shown to have been returned only on 13.08.04. In this connection, he has invited our attention to the copy of the deposit slip in regard to deposit of cheque no. 567993 in the sum of Rs.41,058/- and cheque no. 567996 in the sum of Rs.37,754/- in the bank on 09.08.04. The deposit slip bears the rubber stamp impression of the bank bearing the same date, i.e., 09.08.04. Both these cheques belonged to the same bank but of another (outstation) different branch, i.e., Sansad Marg Branch, New Delhi. Admittedly, the collection proceeds of these two cheques were not credited to the account of the complainant on 09.08.04, i.e., the date of deposit of cheques or before 12.08.04. As would be apparent from the bank statement filed on record, the amount of Rs.78,812/- was credited to the complainant s account only on 12.08.04. The endorsement is R1 from various accounts without giving the cheque numbers, i.e., 567993 and 567996 from which the proceeds were collected/credited. Surprisingly, on the same date before this entry there are entries in regard to the return of the four cheques no. 794047 for Rs.490/-, 794048 for Rs.2053/-, 794046 for Rs.17,508 and 794049 for Rs.39,201. It is important to notice that on 11.08.04, the closing balance in the account of the complainant was shown as Rs.22,570/-. The question as to whether the complainant was entitled to the credit of the proceeds of above numbered two cheques amounting to Rs.78,812/- on the date of deposit of cheques itself or how soon thereafter will be considered hereafter, but the fact remains that a credit balance of Rs.22,570/- was lying in the account of the complainant before the start of any transactions on 12.08.04. That being so, at least three cheques numbered 794047 for Rs.490/-, 794048 for Rs.2,053 and 794046 for Rs.17,508/- totaling to Rs.20,051/- should have been encashed and honoured without any rancor and could not have been returned unpaid. There was enough balance in the account of the complainant to honour at least these three cheques. Learned counsel for the respondent bank argued that the serial order in which the entries are made in the statement of account does not necessarily show that the cheques were, in fact, presented in the same order and it may be possible that the 4th cheque bearing no. 794049 for Rs.39,201/- might have been presented first on that date and since the credit balance was not sufficient for the amount of that cheque, the cheque had to be returned. We are unable to accept this contention because looking at the matter from any angle, at least these three cheuques of smaller amounts should have been honoured by the Bank and could not have been returned for want of sufficient funds. The Bank and its officers are, therefore, guilty of deficiency in service at least to the above extent.