Date of filing:26.12.2013
Date of Disposal:27.8.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.
C.C.No.28 OF 2014
Between :
Sri V.Nagabhushanam, S/o Sri V.Madhava Rao, 66 years, R/o Plot No.37, NSR Nagar, Patamata,Vijaywada – 520 008 Andhra Pradesh, Being represented and espoused by Consumers’ Guidance Society, Having its registered and administration office at Flat No.1, 1st Floor, D.No.58-1-26, Veerapaneni Plaza, Patamata, Vijayawada – 520 010.
….. Complainant.
And
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, SPLPBB, Patamata Branch, 74-13-38, 1st Floor, M.G.Road, Vijayawada - 520 007.
…....Opposite Party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 14.8.2014 in the presence of Consumers’ Guidance Society, Representing the complainant and Sri U.Prakasam, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant has issued a cheque bearing No.993595 dated 8.9.2012 for a sum of Rs.16,000/- in favour of Smt K.Rajani Kumari who is his land lady towards the payment of outstanding house rent. When the said cheque was presented by the payee through her collecting banker the opposite party dishonoured the said cheque though the complainant’s account had sufficient funds at the time of issue the cheque. Due to negligent act of dishounr of the said cheque the complainant underwent mental agony apart from forcible vacation from the tenant premises. Subsequently the complainant made several requests to the opposite party to resolve his request for payment of compensation. But the opposite party intentionally delayed in doing so. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite party to pay compensation. On receipt of the notice the opposite party issued a reply with false allegations for dishonor of the cheque on the alleged ground that the balance in the account of the complainant was kept on hold by the computer as he had paid two EMIs of car loan directly by cash. The complainant got issued rejoinder informing the opposite party that EMIs for two months were paid by him in cash under intimation to the opposite party only and therefore there is no justification in the contention of the opposite party and there is deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and discomfort to the complainant owing to sheer negligence of the opposite party in the form of dishonour of the cheque and to pay costs.
2. The opposite party filed its version.
The version of the opposite party is in brief:
The opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant is a customer to the opposite party and he is maintaining savings bank account and along with his wife he was sanctioned a car loan on 31.3.2011. The said loan shall be repaid in 84 equated monthly instalments at Rs.7,200/- per month. The complainant has given standing instructions to the opposite party to transfer the EMI Rs.7,200/- per month towards the car loan through the saving bank account of him. As per the request of the complainant and as per the standing instructions implemented by the online system every month an amount of Rs.7,200/- was transferred to the car loan account from his saving bank account. The complainant had paid his car loan instalments directly by cash to the car loan account on 18.2.2012 and 2.3.2012 instead of routing through the savings bank account. The complainant has paid his car loan EMIs on 15.8.2012 and his outstanding in the saving bank account is Rs.3,272/-. Again he deposited an amount of Rs.7,200/- on 1.11.2012 and the complainant outstanding in the savings bank account is Rs.10,472/-. Subsequently the car loan EMI was credited to the loan account through the savings bank account on 2.11.2012. The monthly EMIs of September and October, 2012 the complainant did not arrange any amount to his savings bank account. For that he deposited an amount of Rs.18,000/- on 9.11.2012 and the balance outstanding in his savings bank account as on 9.11.2012 was Rs.21,272/- only. As per the standing instructions given to the online computer system the accounts of the complainant, an amount of Rs.14,400/- is already due towards the car loan account for the months of September and October, 2012. The complainant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.16,000/- to the third party but only a total amount of Rs.26,872/- is lying in the account as on 9.11.2012 and Rs.14,400/- held in system. As there is no sufficient funds in the account of the complainant to honour the said cheque of Rs.16,000/- dated 8.9.2012 was returned on 10.11.2012 on its presentation. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in returning the cheque as alleged in the complaint. Therefore the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and on behalf of the opposite party J.Amrutha Madhuri Manager of the opposite party gave her affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in dishonouring the cheque of the complainant even though there is sufficient funds in his savings bank account as per him?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand the complainant has saving bank Account No.30044618933 under Ex.A.1 = Ex.B.2. The complainant availed car loan on 31.3.2011 under Ex.B.1 Account No.31694621755 along with his wife and he has to pay the car loan in 84 monthly instalments @ Rs.7,200/- each. It is an admitted fact that the complainant gave instructions to the opposite party to recover the monthly instalments of car loan through his saving bank account. As per the request of the complainant and as per the standing instructions implemented by the online system every month an amount of Rs.7,200/- was transferred to the car loan account from his saving bank account. The complainant says that he issued cheque bearing No.993595 dated 8.9.2012 for a sum of Rs.16,000/- in favour of his house owner for arrears of rent. But the said cheque was dishonoured by the opposite party stating that “no sufficient funds”. As the opposite party dishour the cheque issued by the complainant, he got issued a legal notice Ex.A.3 dated 11.9.2013 to the opposite party demanding the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for dishonor of cheque, even though he has sufficient amount in his saving bank account the opposite party dishonoured the cheque. If the opposite party fails to pay the said compensation, he will take legal actions against the opposite party in the court of law. The opposite party gave reply dated 17.10.2013 to the complainant stating that a car loan was sanctioned to the complainant on 31.3.2011 and on the instructions of the complainant Rs.7,200/- to be transferred from the complainant’s S.B. Account No.30044618933 to the car loan account in the first week of every month from April 2011 onwards for 84 months. The instalments to be routed through the saving bank account. The standing instructions implemented by the system every month and an amount of Rs.7,200/- was transferred to the car loan of the complainant from his saving bank account. He paid his car loan instalments directly by cash to the loan account on 18.2.2012 and 2.3.2012 instead of through the saving bank account. The balance in the saving bank account from 16.2.2012 to 14.3.2012 is Rs.2,045/- only. Resulting in failure of standing instructions in February and March, 2012 to a tune of Rs.14,400/-. Accordingly to the system once the standing instructions were given, failure due to non-availability of funds will result in automatic creation of hold in the account to the extent of failed standing instructions amount. The hold in the system was continued on the date of presentation of the cheque i.e., 9.11.2012 though there is balance in the account, the system is withholding the amount which is not routed through the account and as a result the cheque was dishonoured. On receiving the said reply from opposite party the complainant got issued rejoinder legal notice Ex.A.5 dated 5.11.2013 stating that the contention of automatic with holding of the amount in complainant’s account owing to system driven application is nothing but saying that even human resources are driven into action by the system which in fact far from true.
7. The counsel of the opposite party says that as per Ex.B.2 the complainant had paid his car loan amount on 15.8.2012 and his outstanding amount in the saving bank Account is Rs.3,272/- and again he deposited an amount of Rs.7,200/- on 1.11.2012 and the outstanding balance is Rs.10,472/-. Subsequently the car loan EMI was credited to the loan account through his S.B. Account on 2.11.2012. The EMIs of September and October, 2012 were not paid by the complainant to his S.B. Account for that he deposited an amount of Rs.18,000/- on 9.11.2012 and the balance in his S.B. Account is Rs.21,272/-. As per instructions given to the online computer system, an amount of Rs.14,400/- due towards the car loan for September and October, 2012 were withheld. The complainant issued a cheque for Rs.16,000/- to the third party but only a total amount of Rs.26,872/- lying in the account as on 9.11.2012. After deducting September and October EMIs of Rs.14,400/- as there is no sufficient funds in the account of the complainant the said cheque was returned on 10.11.2012 with dishonor.
8. On hearing both the parties we, the Forum noticed that the complainant gave instructions to the opposite party to credit the EMIs of his car loan from his S.B. Account. The car loan was taken on 31.3.2011. He paid the EMIs on 18.2.2012, 2.3.2012 by way of cash to his car loan instead of through his S.B. account. Hence the online system withhold the amount for further instructions. The complainant issued a cheque to his house owner on 8.9.2012. There is due of September and October for his car loan the amount of Rs.14,400/- withheld in his S.B. account and as there was no sufficient funds the opposite party dishonour the cheque. More over the cheque was dishonoured on 10.9.2012 and the legal notice Ex.A.3 dated 11.9.2013 was issued after one year of dishonor of the cheque. Once the instructions are given to on line system, when there is any break in receiving the amounts to be paid for loan account will be withheld in the customer account. Therefore we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant in dishonouring the cheque. As there were no sufficient funds in the S.B. account of the complainant the opposite party dishonoured the said cheque. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as he prayed. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th day of August, 2014.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite party:-
P.W.1 V.Nagabhushanam, D.W.1J.Amrutha Madhuri
Complainant Manager
(by affidavit) of the opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.A.1 . . Pass book.
Ex.A.2 22.10.2013 Photocopy of Statement of account.
Ex.A.3 11.09.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.4 17.10.2013 Reply letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.5 05.11.2013 Rejoinder issued by the complainant.
For the opposite party:-
Ex.B.1 19.04.2014 Statement of account relating to the account No.31694621755..
Ex.B.2 19.04.2014 Statement of account relating to the account No.30044618933.
PRESIDENT(FAC)
