CANARA BANK & 2 ORS. Vs. SANJOY MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to order dated 28.8.2015 in Appeal No. 543 of 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission confirmed the finding of the District Forum with respect to deficiency of service on behalf of the Petitioner Bank herein.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant had a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 1542 with the Opposite Party/Bank at their Khidirpur Branch Extension Counter. On 21.8.2010, the Respondent/Complainant had issued a Cheque bearing No. 201728 for Rs. 1,40,000/- in favour of M/s. Nirmal Bang Security Private limited for the purpose of purchase of shares. It is pleaded that the said drawee Company presented the cheque through their Banker being Axis Bank . The said cheque was not honoured by Canara Bank on the ground that the account was "inoperative", despite the cheque related Saving Bank Account having a credit balance of Rs.1,49,516.12/- as on 21.8.2010. It is averred by the Complainant that this non-encashment of the cheque resulted in financial loss to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- and, therefore, he got issued a legal notice on 2.9.2010 to the Opposite Party Bank claiming pecuniary loss of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation and costs. There was no response to the legal notice, hence the Complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) The Opposite Party/Bank filed their written version, accepting their fault and had written a letter to the Complainant stating that the said cheque was returned due to human error which had happened due to the reasons beyond their control and requested the Complainant to present the cheque again. The letter dated 6.10.2010, addressed by the Bank was acknowledged by the Complainant. The Bank submits that there was no deficiency of service on their behalf as the cheque was dishonoured only by a bonafide mistake, which is admitted by them.