Punjab

Patiala

CC/17/49

Naresh kumar Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sameer Gupta

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 49/2017
Date of Institution	:	16.2.2017
Date of Decision	:	21.2.2023

 

Naresh Kumar Rai, aged about 56 years, son of Sh.Naunidh Rai, Permanent resident of village Jahlan, Tehsil & District Patiala, now resident of House No.161-162, New Green Park Colony, Tripuri, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Bank of India, Branch Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Manager.
2. Manager, Bank of India, Branch Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
3. ICICI Bank Ltd.,Branch Sirhind, Jyoti Swaroop Mor, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its Manager.
4. Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch Sirhind, Jyoti Swaroop Mor, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Sameer Gupta, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.B.B.Gupta, counsel for OPs No.1&2

                             Sh.R.K.Pandey, counsel for OP No.3.

                             Complaint against OP No.4 is dismissed being not pressed.

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Naresh Kumar Rai  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Bank of India and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments put forth by the complainant are as follows:

That complainant had financial transactions with one Jaideep Goyal as a result of which Jaideep Goyal was indebted to complainant for the amount so received by him and towards part discharge of his liabilities , he issued cheque No.000112 dated 26.7.2016 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-vide account No.150601501105pertaining to ICICI Bank Limited, Sirhind Branch, Opposite B.Z.S.F.S. Sr.Sec. School, Jyoti Swaroop Mor, Sirhind, to the complainant. Complainant being a customer of Bank of India, NGM Branch, Patiala, presented the same for encashment on 20.10.2016, which was received in clearing in the said branch on 21.10.2016 and an endorsement was duly made by the concerned Manager of the bank through stamp at the back of the said cheque. The said cheque was held validity period up to 26.10.2016 but the same was returned as dishonoured by OP No.3 vide memo dated 24.10.2016 with endorsement that the same was outdated and required to be presented in proper time zone, whereas the cheque was duly presented within the prescribed period of three months and the OPs were under obligation to honour the said cheque when presented within the specified time zone.

The person who had issued the cheque has refused to issue a fresh cheque to the complainant in lieu of discharge of his liability and the complainant has suffered a net loss of Rs.4 lacs due to the negligence of the OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs No.1to3 appeared and filed their separate written statements, whereas, vide order dated 23.2.2017, complaint against OP No.4 was dismissed being not pressed.
4. In the written statement filed by OPs No.1&2 various preliminary objections have been taken. On merits, it is admitted that complainant deposited cheque in Patiala Main Branch vide pay in slip dated 20.10.2016 and thereafter said cheque was sent for clearance but the same was returned un encashed vide memo dated 24.10.2016 by OP No.3. It is alleged that the OPs had duly sent the cheque for its clearance merely being the collecting agent of the complainant through the same was not honoured by OPs No.3&4.There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1&2. After denying all other averments, OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In the written statement filed by OP No.3, it took various preliminary objections. On merits, it is admitted that OP has returned the cheque with remarks “Present in proper zone”. It is submitted that there are two types of cheques i.e.CTS & Non-CTS cheques and both have the different clearing session to present the cheque for its clearance. Since the cheque in question was Non-CTS cheque, but the same was presented in CTS clearing session by OPs no.1&2, hence the same was rightly returned to the presenting bank i.e. Bank of India with remarks, “Present in proper zone” to enable them to present the same in the weekly Non-CTS session of clearing i.e. every Monday of the week. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. After denying all other averments, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of his case, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence, Ex.CA affidavit of complainant alongwith documents, Exs.C1 copy of deposit slip, Ex.C2 copy of cheque and closed the evidence.
7. Ld.counsel for OP No.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA & Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Arshdeep Kumar, Legal Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., alongwith documents, Exs.OP1 & OP2 and closed the evidence.
8. Ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has tendered in evidence, Ex.OPC affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Singh, Chief Manager alongwith document, Ex.OP3 copy of account statement and closed evidence.
9. The complainant deposited a cheque bearing Sr.No.000112 dated 26.7.2016 amounting to Rs.4lacs, issued by one Jaideep Goyal to him, drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, copy of which is Ex.C2, in his saving bank account with Bank of India branch on 20.10.2016, copy of receipt in this regard is Ex.C1. The cheque was duly received by Bank of India and had been stamped as verified on UV Lamp, clearing for CTS clearance by the Manager of the said bank on 21.10.2016(Ex.C2). Said cheque was valid for a period of three months (from the date of issue of cheque on 26.10.2016) i.e. up to 25.10.2016.Said cheque was presented to ICICI Bank Ltd for clearance. However, same was returned on 24.10.2016 with the remarks  “ the cheque be presented in proper zone”.
10. Sh.Gajinder Singh, Chief Manager ( Branch Head) of OPs No.1&2 has deposed in his affidavit, Ex.OPC that  complainant as well as OPs No.3&4 have concealed material facts that there were insufficient funds in the account against which the cheque was drawn and has attached copy of bank statement of Jaideep Goyal, drawee of the cheque, Ex.OP3 showing zero balance. He has further deposed that although there were insufficient funds in the account of Jaideep Goyal against which cheque was drawn, yet, the said reason was not mentioned in the memo issued by ICICI Bank and instead remarks, ‘to present the cheque in proper  zone’ has been appended. Ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has argued that there was no deficiency on the part of  OPs No.1&2 as they have presented the cheque  for clearance to ICICI Bank Ltd. within one day of the presentation of the cheque. He has also relied upon the citation Branch Manager, Federal bank Ltd. Vs. N.S.Sabastian Civil Appeal No.43 of 2009 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.21204 of 2007) of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 7.1.2009, wherein it has been held that ‘ when the drawer did not have adequate deposit in his account at the time of drawing the cheque and the cheque has been lost in transit, it would be impossible for the drawee to get the amount credited in his account. Even if the cheque has not been lost in transit, the same would have been dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds…”

Ld. counsel for OP No.3 has argued that since there were insufficient funds in the account of Jaideep Goyal against which cheque was drawn, as such they are not liable for any deficiency/claim.

11.           Ld. counsel for OP No.3 has relied upon the updated guidelines of Reserve Bank of India dated 30.11.2016,Ex.OP2, vide which there are two types of cheques i.e. CTS and Non CTS cheques and both have different clearing sessions for presenting the cheque for its clearance. ‘CTS (Cheque Truncation System)’ is an image based clearing system  introduced by Reserve Bank of India in 2010 for the faster clearing of cheques. CTS is based on a cheque truncation or online image based cheque clearing system where cheque image and magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) data are captured at the collecting branch and transmitted electronically. Cheque Truncation means stopping the flow of physical cheque issued by drawer to the drawee branch.

Further as para 7 of the updated guidelines of RBI, it has been recommended that in case of ‘CTS (Cheque Truncation System)’ ‘It is preferable to present instruments complying with CTS-2010 standards for clearing through CTS for faster realization. Instruments not complying with CTS-2010 standards will continue be accepted but will be cleared at less frequent intervals i.e. once a week (every Monday)’

12. As such, ld. counsel for OP No.3 has argued that since the cheque was not presented on Monday, therefore, balance in the account of Jaideep Goyal was not checked by the bank and was returned with remarks, ‘to present the cheque in proper zone’.
13. From the arguments put forth by ld. counsel for the parties, it has been observed that cheque was returned by OP No.3 on 24.10.2016 with the remarks ‘ present the cheque in proper zone’ i.e. on Monday. However, after going through the calendar of the year 2016, it transpires that on 24.10.2016 it was Monday only that means OP No.3 has been deficient in dealing with the clearance of the cheque. Moreover, had OP No.3 returned the cheque with remarks of insufficient funds, the complainant would have been within his right to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. In this way complainant has been deprived to avail his legal right under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act though the complainant was well within his right to initiate other proceedings against the OPs.
14.  In view of these facts and circumstances,  complaint is allowed partly and  we  direct OP No.3 as follows:

1. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of deposit of the cheque i.e. 20.10.2016   till realization
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation expenses.

Compliance of the aforesaid order be made by OP No.3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it would be liable to pay interest @9% per annum, on the awarded amount till realization

15. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President