Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/277/2019

B.D.Manikandhan, S/o D.G.Duraisamy, Popular Insurance Associates, No.9/183, 1st floor, Patel Salai, Ranganathapuram, Medavakkam, Chennai 100. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Asst. General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office Chennai 600 002.And 2 Others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.D.Jawahar

01 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 277 of 2019

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.9/2017 dated 01.11.2017 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Chengalpattu)

 

Tuesday, the 01^st day of March 2022

 

Mr. S.D. Manikandhan

S/o.D.G. Duraiswaamy

Proprietor

Popular Insurance Associates

No.9/183, Ist Floor,

Patel Salai, Ranganathapuram

Medavakkam, Chennai – 600 100.                                     .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

 

- Vs -

1.  The Assistant General Manager

     Indian Overseas Bank

     Central Office

     Chennai – 600 002.                            

 

2.  The Branch Manager

     Indian Overseas Bank

     Medavakkam Branch

     Chennai – 600 100.                                                    

 

3.  The Assistant Manager

     Indian Overseas Bank

     Medavakkam Branch

     Chennai – 600 100.                                           .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties

 

   

    Counsel for Appellant /Complainant                          : M/s. D. Jawahar

    Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent /2^nd Opposite Party   : M/s.Sheela Venkatesh

    1^st & 3^rd Respondents/ 1^st & 3^rd Opposite Parties        : Served called absent

                                                                                               

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 01.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.          This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 01.11.2017 passed in C.C. No.9 of 2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein, for non-filing of proof affidavit and documents

 

2.   The factual background culminating into this appeal is as follows: The case of the Complainant is that he is a customer of the opposite party Bank, maintaining a Current Account in the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party branch.  The complainant is doing General Insurance Business along with his father D.G. Duraiswaamy at Reliance General Insurance.  The complainant and his father were having a good relationship with their customers and with the Reliance General Insurance company.  On 04.06.2016, they issued 3 cheques drawn on the opposite party bank, namely, Indian Overseas Bank, Medavakkam Branch made in Cheque Nos.210282, 210283 & 210284 amounting to Rs.70,179/-. The cheques were returned for the reason “Funds insufficient” though a sum of Rs.58,288/- was available in the complainant’s Current Account.  On 08.06.2016, the Branch Manager, second opposite party had issued a letter to the complainant stating that due to technical services they were unable to honour the cheques and the same were returned.  Since the cheques were returned, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penalty for the return of cheques to the Reliance General Insurance.  Therefore, there is a loss of goodwill from their customers.  The complainant was put into irreparable loss and mental agony.  Hence, he issued a legal notice on 14.07.2016 and the same was received by the first opposite party on 16.07.2016.  Thereafter, they have filed the present complaint, alleging deficiency of service and seeking the following reliefs:-

a)  to take proper action against the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties;

b)  to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency in service ;  and

c)  to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

 

3.  The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties by taking a defence that the complaint filed against the opposite parties is not in order or in accordance with law.  The complainant is only a constituent account holder of Indian Overseas Bank, Medavakkam Branch, a banking institution. As such his relationship as a customer, is only with the Bank as an institution and not with the individual officers of the Bank, who have been relieved on transfer to another branch.  Since the complaint has not been filed as against the institution, the same is liable to be dismissed. In paragraph 4 of the complaint, the complainant had stated that he had issued 3 cheques for 3 different sums totalling Rs.70,179/- and when all the 3 cheques were sent for clearing on 04.06.2016 he had a balance of Rs.58,288/- only in his account. Since the cheques have to be cleared online, there was technical difficulty in clearing all the 3 cheques simultaneously on the same day with the available funds in his account.  Unless the complainant had made up for the deficit before the clearing hours on 04.06.2016 itself, there was no option left to the bank except to return the cheques, since the bank cannot select on its own as to which of the 3 cheques can be cleared, with the funds available.  On the concern of the customers, only the complainant ought to have reported to the bank before the completion of clearing on 04.06.2016, as to his choice.  The complainant had deliberately failed to give the date of the 3 cheques, which was probably inconvenient or disadvantage for him to disclose.  Having knowledge of the exact funds available in his account, he being a busy agent dealing with so many customers, he ought to have either given instructions to the bank in advance as to which of the 3 cheques can be adjusted for debiting or arrange for funds to clear all the cheques by depositing the required balance before closing of the clearing hours.  The clearing of all cheques are done only through computer processing, which are automatic, based on the data available in the computer.  Only when there is manual operation, the human element comes in.  The complainant ought to have been cautious enough to maintain sufficient balance before issuing cheques, when he knows fully well that the banking operations are all computerised and the processing is automatic giving no chance for the official’s discretion.  The complainant has to blame himself, for the inadequate balance in his account and for the delay in providing sufficient funds in his account to clear all the 3 cheques simultaneously before the clearing hours, i.e., before 12 noon on 04.06.2016.  The complainant remitted a sum of Rs.15,000/- after the clearing was over on 04.06.2016.   Here again, he was in fault in not remitting the required funds in time to enable the clearing of all the 3 cheques.  But, by suppressing all these facts, he had filed the complaint, throwing the blame on the opposite parties and so sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.  To prove the case, on the side of the complainant, no proof affidavit was filed and no documents were marked.  Hence, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the reasoning, when the total amount for all the three cheques exceeds the amount available in the current account of the complainant, it is the prime duty of the complainant to inform the bank about which cheques to be honoured and which are to be withheld.  But the complainant has not done so.  The said valid objection of the opposite party was not answered by the complainant’s side and he has not at all come forward to substantiate the contents of the complaint with any oral or documentary evidence on his side, though several chances were given to the complainant.  Mere filing of the complaint will not suffice to prove the case of the complaint.  The complainant has to substantiate the contents of the complaint through oral and documentary evidences.  Since the complainant failed to prove the averments of the case with substantial oral and documentary evidence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.  Aggrieved over the same, the complainant has filed this Appeal. 

 

5.   Heard the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and perused the material available on records.

 

6.  The main reason for dismissing the complaint is that the complainant has not come forward to file proof affidavit and substantial documents, inspite of several opportunities given to him.  Thus, he had failed to prove the case.  In the present appeal, counsel for the appellant submitted that if the order is set aside and remitted back, by giving an opportunity to the complainant to file proof affidavit and documents, he could prove his case.  However, this submission made by the counsel for the appellant was very much objected by the counsel for the respondent stating that there is no proper explanation by the complainant with regard to the defence raised by the opposite parties.  Therefore, even if the matter is remitted back, no useful purpose would be served and thus sought dismissal of the appeal.

 

7.  Be that as it may, the complaint has failed only for non-filing of the proof of documents, irrespective of the grounds raised.  Hence, we are of the opinion that a chance can be given to the complainant to contest the case on merits, by imposing some condition, in the interest of justice.  Therefore, when the matter came up on 22.02.2022 we passed an Order setting aside the Order passed by the District Commission, Chengalpattu and remanded the matter back to the District Commission on condition that the appellant / complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the respondents on or before 28.02.2022 as we thought it would be appropriate to compensate the respondents.  

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he had paid the cost to the respondents as ordered on 22.02.2022 and also filed the compliance memo in proof of the same.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission to enable the complainant to file proof affidavit along with necessary documents to prove his case.  The learned District Commission is directed to dispose off the matter after providing sufficient opportunities to both parties.  The parties are directed to appear on 01.04.2022 before the District Commission, Chengalpattu for further proceedings.

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                  R.SUBBIAH

       MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT