BANK OF BARODA Vs. GAURAV AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against, order dated 27.8.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called District Forum  for short), passed in Complaint Case No.307/2010, whereby the complaint of the complainant/respondent against the OP/appellant Bank, alleging deficiency in service in making reversal entries of an amount of Rs.15,00,000 and causing loss to the complainant/respondent, has been allowed and it has been directed to the appellant Bank to deposit the amount of Rs.15,00,000 back in the account of the complainant and also to pay an amount of Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental agony and an amount of Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the complainant/respondent is running a business house and is a partner of Om Kiran Ispat. The firm Om Kiran Ispat was having a cash credit bank account with the appellant Bank in the name of the firm. In that account of firm Om Kiran Ispat, a cheque of Rs. 15,00,000 was deposited on 31.7.2006 bearing No.991002. The appellant Bank on the date of deposit of said cheque made entries in that regard in the account of Om Kiran Ispat, but after few days on 11.8.2006 again made a debit entry of Rs. 15,00,000 from the account. The complainant being, a partner of Om Kiran Ispat, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, with the allegation that appellant Bank has committed deficiency in providing banking services, as it has withdrawn the amount of Rs. 15,00,000 from the bank account of the firm, without giving any notice and without any reason. When the debit entry was noticed by the complainant respondent, then the appellant Bank was contacted and it was assured by the officers of the Bank that necessary reversal entry in the bank account, would be made in due time. But, when no such reversal entry was made and the amount of cheque was not deposited by the Bank, then complainant issued a notice to the Bank and when in reply of that notice, Bank has refused to deposit the amount, then complaint was filed before District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in providing banking services on the part of the Bank.

(3.) THE appellant Bank in the written version has refuted the allegations levelled in the complaint against the Bank and submitted that the complainant/respondent was not competent to file any complaint on behalf of a partnership firm, because the firm was having the bank account and not the complainant/respondent, in his personal capacity. He has also not been authorized by the partnership firm to file complaint on behalf of the firm. It has also been averred that the firm Om Kiran Ispat was having an account in the appellant Bank for the purpose of commercial transactions and cheque, which was deposited in the Bank, was also in relation of commercial transactions of the firm and therefore, services of the Bank were availed for the commercial purpose and so also complaint was not maintainable. It has also been averred that the cheque, which was deposited by the complainant, was sent for collection to the clearing house. The cheque was that of Indira Priyadarshni Mahila Nagrik Co -Operative Bank Limited. When Clearing House sent that cheque to Indira Priyadarshni Mahila Nagrik Co -Operative Bank Limited, then amount of cheque was not made available by that Bank to the appellant Bank and in the meantime, the Indira Priyadarshni Mahila Nagrik Co -Operative Bank Limited failed and its banking licence was cancelled. Even the instrument i.e. the cheque was also not returned by that Bank, in spite of direction of Clearing House and so the bounced cheque was also not available. As amount of cheque, was not collected from the drawers issuing Bank, therefore, the entry which was made in the account of the firm to show that cheque of Rs.15,00,000 was deposited was reversed by making another entry on 11.8.2006 by debiting that amount from the account. In making these entries, the appellant Bank has not committed any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice. The appellant Bank was bound to obey the rules for Bankers Clearing House, which were framed by Reserve Bank of India and as per such rules, everything was done by it but as no amount was made available so no deficiency in service has been committed by the appellant Bank in making reversal entry.