Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member and
C. Viswanath, Member
The Manager, Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd.
and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Ranaji Ganguli and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3946 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 14/09/2012 in Appeal No.94/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 27.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Manita Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Since bank has released the payment in favour of the person in whose name drafts were issued, therefore, bank cannot be directed to refund the same amount to complainants.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 35]—Bank draft—Loss of—Refund of amount—Scope—Respondents-complainants got two bank drafts for Rs. 90,000/- each from the petitioner bank in the name of Smt. Jayanti Banerjee totalling to Rs. 1,80,000/-—Allegedly on the next day respondents had lost two draft in the taxi—Complaint filed for refund of an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-—On one hand complainants alleged that the bank drafts were lost in the taxi and on the other hand drafts were presented by actual person in whose name the drafts were issued within three days—Complaint was filed on the ground that despite the complainants lodging the compliant with the bank for loss of demand draft and requested for ‘stop payment’, the bank has paid the amount of drafts to person concerned—No evidence has been filed by complainants to prove that the drafts reached to wrong Jayanti Banerjee—Bank has released the payment in favour of the person in whose name the drafts were issued—Deficiency on part of bank ruled out—Since bank has already paid the amount to the right person, refund of the same amount to the complainants ruled out—Impugned orders of Fora below set aside. (Para 10 and 11)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Manager Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. & anr. challenging the order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in FA/94/2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/ complainants got two bank drafts for Rs.90,000/- each from the petitioner bank in the name of Smt. Jayanti Banerjee totalling to Rs.1,80,000/- on 11.03.2008. On the next day i.e. 12.03.2008 the respondents/complainants had lost two drafts in the taxi, which he used for his transportation. The petitioner bank received a letter from the complainants on 13.03.2008 mentioning the loss of two bank drafts alongwith copy of the complaint lodged by the complainants with Kalighat Police Station. On 15.03.2008, these bank drafts were presented for clearing by Patura Para Branch of Central Bank of India, Kolkata. The petitioner bank returned these drafts/banker cheques with the remark “reported lost”. The petitioner bank received a letter from Jayanti Banerjee stating that the payment made by these bank drafts was due to her from the respondents/complainants. The petitioner bank then took up the matter with the Central Bank of India and they received the information that Jayanti Banerjee was an authorised account holder of Central Bank of India and she had presented the drafts for depositing in her account with the Central Bank of India. After confirmation from the Central Bank of India about the genuinity of the account holder Jayanti Banerjee, the petitioner bank cleared the payment of these drafts in favour of Jayanti Banerjee on 26.05.2008. In the meanwhile, the complainants had requested the petitioner bank for issuing duplicate drafts and the bank had taken an indemnity from the complainants in this regard to process the request of issue of the demand daft, however, the bank did not reissue the drafts and made the payment to account holder Jayanti Banerjee in whose account the drafts were deposited.
3. The complainants then filed a consumer complaint bearing no.257 of 2008 before the Kolkata District Consumer Disputes Forum, Unit-I, (District Forum) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying for refund of an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- for which the drafts were issued along with a compensation of Rs.40,000/-. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank by filing the written statement. It was claimed by the petitioner bank that under the RBI instructions, they cannot withhold the payment of the demand drafts for a long time and they had made the payment after verifying the genuineness of the account holder in whose account the drafts were deposited. The District Forum, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 30.01.2012 as under:-
“That the petition of complainant is allowed on contest with cost against the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only together with interest @5%p.a. from the date of issue and till the date of realization of the entire sum and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainants within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realisation.”
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.01.2012 of the District Forum, the petitioners/opposite party bank preferred appeal before the State Commission being Appeal No.94 of 2012.The State Commission allowed the said appeal in part by modifying the judgment and order dated 30.1.2012 passed by the District Forum to the extent that interest @5% p.a. allowed on the refund of Rs.1,80,000/- was omitted while affirming the other directions given in the order of the District Forum.
5. Hence the present revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel f
