- Madan Mohan Saraff,
11/1, Sunny Park, Kolkata-19. ________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Branch Head
Axis Bank Ltd., “Priority Banking”
2/1A Sarat Bose Road,
Kolkata-20, P.S. Ballygunge.
- Axis Bank Ltd.
Trishul, 3rd Floor, Near Law Garden,
Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380006.
- Mng. Director,
Axis Bank Ltd.
13, Maker Tower ‘F’,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba,
Mumbai 400005.
- Mr. P.J. Nayak,
Chairman & CEO,
Axis Bank Ltd.
Cuffe Parade, Coloba,
Mumbai 400005. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 21 Dated 21/01/2016.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had a savings account being no.411010100001496 with o.ps. O.ps. informed the complainant that if the account may not have sufficient fund temporarily no cheques issued by complainant would be dishonoured and opportunity would be given to complainant to make up the short fall, if any. The account was linked with all the accounts maintained by complainant with o.ps. whether the deposited money would be fixed deposit or otherwise. O.ps. accepted the said instruction but they refused to honour a cheque being no.002866 dt.10.8.07 for Rs.124850/- issued by complainant for the payment of payee’s invoice nos.MP1038 and MP1039 in favour of NPR Finance Ltd., 19 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-1 and returned the same to the payee’s bank. Complainant had alleged that this unethical action was carried out although there was sufficient cover for the disbursement of the cheque. Complainant demanded an explanation for this unethical service of o.ps. vide his letter dt.14.8.07 and 20.8.07 but no response was received in time from o.ps. Thereafter a letter was received by complainant on 10.9.07 and complainant replied immediately on 13.9.07 against that letter but no response was received from o.ps. For this act of service on the part of o.ps. the complainant has suffered a lot and for this he filed the instant petition praying for direction upon the o.ps. to pay a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- being the cost of loss of reputation and harassment, negligence of service along with litigation cost.
O.ps. appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that complainant opened the savings account which is of priority banking scheme and it was known to complainant that minimum AQB (Average Quarterly Balance) in the savings account would be of Rs.1 lakh. The customers are supposed to issue cheque after keeping sufficient balance in the account. It was duly informed over the telephone for the short fall amount in his account but complainant was not diligent to pay heed to the request of the Relationship Manager of o.ps. Complainant was informed that only the fixed deposits with the tenure of less than 181 days can be linked to the savings account. Complainant’s fixed deposit being nos.411010400001212 and 41101400001816 were for 13 months and 12 months 1 day respectively and it was clearly explained to complainant that these term deposits cannot be linked to complainant’s savings account as per the product. As a matter of fact the cheque no.002866 dt.10.8.07 which had hit the account of complainant was of Rs.1,24,850/- but the balance in the savings account was only Rs.97,363/- which was actually matured for a short fall of Rs.27,484/-. The Relationship Manager of the bank had already explained to complainant that the one way autosweep facility in term deposit account to pass cheques issued by complainant in the savings bank account is available only for short term deposits which are for the tenure of below 181 days. O.ps. immediately tried to contact the complainant and his accountant so that cash would be deposited in time to pass the cheque. But o.ps. were unable to contact with the complainant or his accountant. Due to the delay in obtaining instruction the service branch of o.ps. could not make delay high value clearing beyond stipulated RBI timings and the cheque was returned by that time. When complainant demanded explanation for the dishonoured cheque o.ps. explained the reasons by their letter dt.3.9.07. The bank was forced to dishonour the cheque within RBI cut out time since they failed to contact with complainant for his instruction. Moreover, complainant closed his all account on 14.8.07 vide his letter dt.13.8.07 and hence, complainant is no more the customer / consumer of o.ps. at the time of filing of the instant case. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and complainant is not a consumer of o.ps. and as such, o.ps. pray for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant opened a Priority (Savings) Account with o.ps bank being no.S/B A/C No.411010100001496. In the complaint petition it is stated that complainant had been dealing with business for his livelihood which is the only source of income and he carries on his business at 11/1, Sunny Park, Kolkata-19. But in his petition of complaint complainant did not disclose his status in the business as well as his nature of business. Nowhere complainant mentioned his status but it is evident from the documents that his business involves transaction of lakhs of rupees in relation to various business organizations. He also maintained a Priority (Savings) A/C which required the maintenance of AQB (Average Quarterly Balance) of Rs.1 lakh in the savings bank account. Complainant always states in his petition that he is self employed but he did not disclose the name of the organization. In reply to the questionnaire filed by o.ps. the complainant did not disclose his income tax return. Moreover, the bank account shows the foreign transactions. It is evident from the bank statement that the various transactions of the complainant were commercial purpose. No document shows that complainant runs his business for his livelihood by way of self employment and no balance sheet has been produced including I.T. return. Therefore, complainant has failed to establish his locus standi as a consumer under C.P. Act, 1986.
Moreover, the cheque being no.002866 dt.10.8.07 for Rs.1,24,850/- issued by complainant was dishonoured since insufficient fund in his savings bank account. As on that day there was short fall of Rs.27,484/-. O.ps. tried contact with complainant for taking instruction for pre-mature withdrawal of F.D. but they failed. As on that date the two F.Ds of complainant were not for the tenure of less than 181 days. So, o.ps. bank could not link those two F.Ds with his savings bank account for clearance of the aforesaid cheque. As per RBI guideline the cut out time of high value cheque is upto 2-00 p.m. but complainant did not contact with o.p. bank within the stipulated time though he had issued a cheque which was for the amount of more than the required balance. Moreover, complainant closed all his accounts with o.ps. on 14.8.07 vide his letter dt.13.8.07. So, we find no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and as such, complainant is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
