FA  170  of 2011  against C.C. 600/2009, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.

Between:

Andhra Bank, Service Centre

Rep. by its Branch Manager

1^st Floor, Taramandal Complex

Saifabad, Hyderabad-4.                              ***                         Appellant/

          O.P. No. 1.

                                                                    And

1)  Smt. G. Sowjanya

W/o. G. Koteswara Rao

Plot No. 263, H.No. 11-15-14/4

Kothapet, Saroornagar

Hyderabad.                                                           ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Complainant

2)  State Bank of Hyderabad

Rep. by its Branch Manager

High Court Premises Branch

Hyderabad.                                                           ***                         Respondent/

(R2 is not a necessary party to this petition)                           O.P. No. 2.

Counsel for the  Appellant:                         M/s. M. V. Ramana

Counsel for the  Respondents:                   P.I.P.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                                                                   &

                                          SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER.
                                                         

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF  SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ELVEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                This is an appeal preferred by  Andhra Bank  (Op1)  against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that  she opened an account with  Andhra Bank,  Seethammadhara branch of  Visakapatnam.  Later  her husband  got a job  in  Hyderabad..    On  18.6.2009 she   issued an a/c  payee cheque for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of her husband drawn on  Andhra Bank, Visakapatnam.   When her husband presented the cheque  through his account  at SBH, High Court Branch, Hyderabad  the cheque was returned  on 19.6.2009  with endorsement of  insufficient funds.   In fact,  she had Rs.  58,778/-   in her account  sufficient to honour the cheque.    It has also debited Rs. 66/- towards cheque bounce charges.  Alleging it amounts to deficiency in service she filed the complaint claiming compensation of  Rs. 1 lakh together with costs.

3)                 The appellant bank did not choose to contest the matter  despite service of notice.

4)                 The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked.

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering  the evidence placed on record opined that  the complainant had a balance of  Rs. 58,778/- as on  19.6.2009 when the cheque was dishonoured and returning the cheque  on the ground of insufficient funds would undoubtedly constitute negligence or deficiency in service, and therefore directed the appellant  to pay  Rs. 50,000/- together with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

6)                 Aggrieved by the said decision, Andhra Bank Op1 preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that  during the month of  June, 2009  while updating the general banking to core banking system  for effective service to the customers  in the process of conversion some  glitches  in the system had  occurred.   The complainant instead of representing  the  grievance to the bank rushed to Dist. Forum.    She did not give any opportunity to sort out the problem.    In fact  it has entrusted the matter to one of the advocates who did not file Vakalat, and consequently  there was no representation on  its behalf.     Only when notice in  E.A. 81/2010 was  served   it preferred the appeal.    It alleged that there was no mental agony to the complainant except delay in  receiving  the amount.   Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                 It is an undisputed fact that the cheque that was issued by the complainant in favour of her husband dt. 18.6.2009  was bounced on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’ vide Ex. A1 cheque and Ex. A2 cheque return memo.     A perusal of Ex. A3 pass book shows that an amount of Rs. 58,778/-  was in credit by the date of presentation of cheque  by her husband.    A perusal of  Ex. A3 pass book shows that an amount of Rs. 66/- was also debited towards cheque bounce charges. 

9)                 These facts were not disputed by the appellant.    The appellant bank did not choose to contest the matter despite  receipt of notice  by way of registered post.    It now alleges that it has engaged an advocate  but he failed to file Vakalat.  Obviously  no action against said advocate was taken.  It did not deny the facts pleaded by the complainant.   What all  now it intends to state is that during those days  the bank has undertaken computerization, and as there was   some technical hitch the cheque was bounced.   Except taking such a contention the bank did not file any document evidencing that the cheque was bounced due to technical snag.    When it has taken up computerization it should have been fool-proof method.   If any lapse occurred the bank can as well collect  it from the agency to which the computerization was entrusted.    On that score it cannot  deny  the liability.   When it has no compunction to collect Rs. 66/- towards cheque bounce charges  there is no reason why the bank should not be equally mulcted with compensation for  the deficiency in service.   After all the very purpose for which the cheque was issued  was defeated.   There is no reason why the complainant should spell out the loss that was caused for not crediting the amount for which cheque was issued.    It  is obvious  that  the very  purpose  is defeated.   No doubt the

cheque was issued for Rs. 50,000/-.  It is not a case where the complainant did not withdraw the amount at  subsequent  point of time.   She has withdrawn the amount on 4.7.2009.   The period for which the amount was denied was for a period of 15 days.     Considering the nature of deficiency and the period for which the complainant was denied the amount, we are of the opinion that an amount  of Rs. 10,000/- could be awarded towards compensation for the loss occasioned to the complainant.    Bouncing of cheque entails collection of bouncing charges.    This would  also entail serious repercussions in future in regard to her credibility.    The complainant could prove that the cheque was bounced without any justifiable cause.   There was some defect in the computerization was not proved.  Considering the circumstances, we are of the opinion that  granting a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was on higher side.  We are of the opinion that  Rs. 10,000/- could be reasonable and modest in the circumstances.

10)               In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the Dist. Forum directing the appellant bank to pay Rs. 10,000/- together with costs of Rs. 2,000/- that was awarded by the Dist. Forum.  Rest of the appeal is dismissed.   Time for compliance four weeks. 

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

                                                                                       28/09/2011

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.