BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 24/01/2012

Date of Order : 31/01/2014

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 53/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

1. The facts of the case leading to this complaint are as follows :-

The complainant is a Savings Account holder with S.B Account No. 3386 0201005097 maintained by the opposite party bank at Kalady. The complainant took a loan from the bank to purchase a bike and also handed over 23 post dated cheques to the bank. Each cheque was for Rs. 2,053/- for 23 instalments and some cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured by the opposite party bank for no fault of the complainant. The complainant therefore approached this Forum seeking direction against the opposite party bank to pay Rs. 5 lakhs towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank and for the severe mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :-

The opposite party in its version submitted that the complainant had been issued cheque leaves No. 203581 to 203600 on 14-06-2010 and the cheque numbers were entered in the system maintained by the bank that due to some software problems, the system failed to accept the cheque numbers in respect of cheques issued to the complainant, that Indusind Bank to whom the post-dated cheques were submitted got it presented at Mumbai service branch, that the said branch might not have been able to check with the opposite party Kalady branch about the issuance of the cheque and hence the two cheques of the complainant got dishonoured. It is submitted that the bank cannot be alleged of negligence or deficiency in service for the systemic error, that the bank staff had never made any comments on the complainant had never ill treated him and in fact the services of the opposite party bank is still being availed by the complainant. The bank had acted only in accordance with law. Therefore, it is prayed that the complaint filed against the opposite party bank may be dismissed with costs.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The complainant's witness was examined as PW2. The documentary evidence adduced by the complainant were marked as Exts. A1 to A9. The Senior Manager of the opposite party bank was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party bank. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The main issues that arose in this case are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs in view of the facts and circumstances of the case?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- The complainant holds a saving account in the opposite party bank, Kalady branch. He availed a loan from the opposite party to purchase a bike and 23 post dated cheques were handed over to the opposite party bank towards equated monthly instalments. Each cheque was for Rs. 2,052/- towards equated monthly instalment. Out of the cheques issued ie. out of the cheques bearing numbers from 203581 to 203600, cheque No. 203581 dated 21-09-2011 and 203582 dated 21-10-2011 were dishonoured stating that the above cheques were 'not issued' as evidenced by Exts. A1 to A3. It is submitted by the complainant's counsel that the outstanding credit balance as on 21-09-2011 was Rs. 4,152.95 as evidenced by Ext. B1. It is also submitted by the opposite party bank that the subsequent cheques were honoured properly on 21-12-2011, 15-06-2011, 24-06-2011 and 29-06-2011 and so on. The complainant contended that dishonouring the cheques even with sufficient balance in the account of the complainant by stating wrong reasons amounts to deficiency in service, that the act of dishonouring the cheques even when there was sufficient fund in the account of the complainant has badly affected the CIBIL score of the complainant and it will prevent the complainant from getting any other loan and credit card from other banking institutions. It is further contended that the above act of the opposite party caused damage to the reputation of the complainant, also caused mental shock and the ill treatment of the complainant by the bank staff in front of his brother-in-law and the public had inflicted severe mental agony to the complainant for which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The opposite party on the other hand, fairly conceded that the cheques numbers in respect of the cheques issued to the complainant were not accepted by the computer system due to some software problems and the officials at Mumbai service branch where the cheques were presented could not confirm the actual position of the cheques issued to the complainant due to heavy work load, that on getting a complaint from the complainant on 02-11-2011 about the dishonour of the cheques, the opposite party bank could enter the cheque numbers into the system in the month of November 2011 itself. It is submitted by the opposite party that the systemic error cannot be alleged of negligence or deficiency in service as explained in the version filed by the opposite party. The allegation of comments on the complainant by the staff of the opposite party bank was denied by the opposite party. There are no corroborative evidence to prove the same except the oral deposition of PW1 the complainant and that of PW2 the witness for the complainant. From the facts and circumstances stated above, it is evident that systemic error caused dishonour of 2 cheques issued to the complainant by the bank. But the said act cannot be taken as a minor problem. It has great impact on the credibility of the complainant. Here the complainant's CIBIL score was affected. The opposite party should have been more vigilant while dishonouring the cheques given by an innocent consumer, especially when even the enquiries made to call centres of banks are reported to CIBIL and even a small over due amount with credit cards is reported as well and results in bad credit of a customer and hence the very credibility of the complainant may be affected. In the instant case, the complainant has no case that he could not take any other loan due to a wrong report to CIBIL. However, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in dishonouring the complainant's cheques even when there was sufficient fund in his account. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the opposite party bank has rectified the mistake in entering the subsequent cheque numbers in the system, we find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service and also for the severe mental shock, mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant. We fix it at Rs. 20,000/-, we find that the above award is sufficient to redress the grievances of the complainant. No amount allowed towards costs.

6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that, the opposite party bank shall pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the deficiency in service and for the mental agony suffered and inconveniences caused to the complainant.

The above order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the due date till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of January 2014.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========