Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 417 (CHH)

MOHAN DAS v. CHIEF BRANCH MANAGER. SBI

2006-08-29

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2006
ORDER As per Hon'ble Justice Shri V.K. Agarwal, President 1. This appeal, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 30-5-06 in complaint No. 85/2006 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) directing the respondent bank to pay to the complainant appellant compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as well as cost of Rs.500/-: 2. Indisputably the complainant has a Savings Bank account with the respondent! bank. It is also not in dispute that he on 21.6.05 had deposited a cheque for Rs. 1,40,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Raipur. The said cheque was however dishonoured and was returned back, the intimation whereof was given to the complainant by the respondent/ bank. Later on the complainant appellant appears to have resubmitted the above cheque for collection and encashment on 27.9.05. It is further not in dispute that the said cheque also got dishonoured. 3. The averments of the complainant were that the said amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was shown as deposited on 14,10.05 in his pass book. However, later on 10.11.05 there was a reverse entry showing debit of the said amount from his account. The complainant has averred that action as above of the respondent bank amounted to deficiency in service. The complainant, therefore claimed compensation. 4. The complaint was resisted by the respondent bank, It was averred that as per system of computerized accounting recently implemented in the bank, the amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- shown in the credit in the account of the complainant on 14.10.05. However, according to the respondent bank, the amount of cheque was actually not realized by them. It was averred that the cheque having been dishonoured subsequently, intimation thereof was given to the complainant on 10.11.05 and the dishonoured cheque was also returned to him on 17.11.05. It was averred that reverse entry showing the above amount as debited, was made since the cheque was dishonoured. The respondent bank claimed that there was no deficiency in service by the respondent bank. 5. District Forum in the impugned order observed that though the cheque was resubmitted for collection on 27.9.05, action thereon was not taken by the respondent bank till 14.10.05, which amounted to deficiency in service, Consequently, compensation of Rs.5,000/- was awarded. The respondent bank claimed that there was no deficiency in service by the respondent bank. 5. District Forum in the impugned order observed that though the cheque was resubmitted for collection on 27.9.05, action thereon was not taken by the respondent bank till 14.10.05, which amounted to deficiency in service, Consequently, compensation of Rs.5,000/- was awarded. It was further observed by the District Forum that the amount of cheque i.e. Rs, 1,40,000/- has been shown as uncleared amount. Further, since the cheque was dishonoured, the reverse entry by way of withdrawal entry was shown in the accounts book and in the pass book of the account holder/ complainant. It was therefore held that there was no deficiency in that regard. 6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. Record perused. 7. The relevant accounts entries maintained by the respondent/ bank are seen, It appears from the said entries that initially Rs, 1,40,000/- the amount of the cheque was shown as credit entry in the account of complainant on 14,10,05, However, the statement of accounts of the respondent! bank also shows reverse entry of Rs, 1,40,000/- on 17,11.05 showing the said amount in the withdrawal column and the balance at the credit of the appellant on that date was shown as Rs,I,564-47p, Therefore, it appears that after the cheque hounsed and was received back, reverse entry on 17,11,05 as above has been made, 8. Since the cheque has been dishonoured, the complainant cannot get any additional compensation on account of entries as above made, However, we find that the system of making entries as above to be misleading, Ifthe amount on submission of cheque only without actually collection and receipt the amount thereof, a separate column should be provided in the accounts book as also in the pass book of the account holder. Similarly, if the cheque is dishonoured, the entries to that effect should be made separately rather than making debit entry in the withdrawal column of the accounts book and pass book of the account holder, to ensure that he is not mislead by the entries of credit and debit as above. It is hopped that computerized system of accounting should be corrected and modified, so that the customers are not put to any inconvenience and are not misled. It is hopped that computerized system of accounting should be corrected and modified, so that the customers are not put to any inconvenience and are not misled. However, considering the foregoing circumstances, the complainant does not appear entitled to get any additional compensation than what has been awarded by the District Forum. 9. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. However, since on account of misunderstanding as above, the complainant appellant has been required to travel in appeal and approach this Commission, we award him cost of this appeal, which will be payable to him by the respondent bank and which is quantified at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, Appeal Rejected.