State Bank of Mysore
COMPLAINT FILED: 27.09.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2126/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Smt. Savithri. K.C. W/o. B.R. Prasad, Aged 50 years, Residing at No. 44/A, 7th Main Road, Railway Colony, Shankarnagar, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore 560 096. 2. Simi Prasad, D/o. B.R. Prasad, Aged 24 years, Residing at No. 44/A, 7th Main Road, Railway Colony, Shankarnagar, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore 560 096. Advocate (K.N. Praveen Kumar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Ist Block, Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore 560 010. Advocate (T.S. Mahabaleswara) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.8,700/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: The present complainants are having joint account at OP bearing No. 54021775687. Complainant deposited a cheque bearing No. 378662 drawn on ICICI Bank issued by one Smitha Pillai for a sum of Rs.8,700/- on 23.04.2008. The said Smitha Pillai had a sufficient balance at her account when she issued the said cheque. Though initially OP credited the amount to their account but subsequently on 02.05.2008 debited the said amount from complainant account with a remark claim of clearing 23.04.2008 transferred to 09854440197. The arbitrary act of the OP has caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of theirs. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants to re-credit the said amount covered under the cheque, went in futile. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it has not received credit of the related cheque. On enquiry they came to know that the related cheque has been listed to Vijaya Bank instead of ICICI Bank by the Canara Bank MICR Center. When OP Bank contacted Vijaya Bank it was informed that they have not received the referred cheque. Under the circumstances it is the sole duty of the Canara Bank MICR Center to sort out and send the cheque to the concerned Bank and credit the amount to the respondent Bank properly. No fault lies with the OP. Complainants have to redress their grievance against the Canara Bank and Vijaya Bank. Till today the proceeds of the said cheque are received by the OP nor the cheque is returned to them. There is an option for the complainant to obtain duplicate cheque. Though it was informed to the complainants they have not exhausted the said remedy. The details of the drawer was also furnished, no action is taken. The non-cooperation of the complainant prevented the OP from persuing the matter with the drawer of the cheque. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that these complainants have got the S.B. Account at OP Bank and they deposited a cheque drawn on ICICI Bank by one Smt. Smitha Pillai for a sum of Rs.8,700/- on 23.04.2008. It is also not at dispute that initially OP credited the said amount to the account of the complainants, but subsequently on 02.05.2008 it is debited from the complainants account with some remark. When complainant questioned the said arbitrary act of the OP, OP did not respond positively and gave evasive reply. Hence they felt the deficiency in service. Complainant even caused the notice. Again there was no response from the OP. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant, it finds corroboration from the contents of the undisputed documents. 7. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, it wants to throw the burden and blame on the Canara Bank MICR Center and Vijaya Bank. It appears the Canara Bank sent the said cheque to the Vijaya Bank instead of ICICI Bank. When OP came to know of the said fact it would have got sorted out the said mistake immediately and would have helped the customer the consumer like complainants, but they have not taken any steps. When there is a proof that complainants deposited the said cheque with the OP, it is for the OP to comply the other formalities, but it is not done. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. Merely because till today the proceeds of cheque nor the cheque is returned to the OP, is no ground. It is for the OP to make sincere efforts by contacting Canara Bank MICR Center and Vijaya Bank and help the customer, but it has failed in its duty. Strangely OP has come up with a defence that complainants would have obtained the duplicate cheque from the person who has given it. Why should complainants obtain the duplicate cheque when no fault lies with them. So OP cannot direct the complainant what they should do, it is advisable OP should discharge its obligation. Again no such steps are taken. Under such circumstances we find there is a liability on the part of the OP in not extending defect free service. 9. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As already observed by us, for no fault of theirs, complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they are entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.8,700/- to the complainant in pursuance of the cheque referred to and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.