Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/21/2016

R. Lakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank, The Senior Manager - Opp.Party(s)

C.S. Vasan

03 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                                     PRESIDENT

Tmt  Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                       MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.21/2016

(Against order in CC.NO.407/2007 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South)

 

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF MARCH 2022        

 

1.       R. Lakshmi

14-A, Varadharajaswamy Nagar

Maduravoyal

Chennai – 600 095

 

2.       S. Sathish Kumar

14-A, Varadharajaswamy Nagar                                                                                             M/s. Chandru

Maduravoyal                                                                                                                          Counsel for

Chennai – 600 095                                                                                                                 Appellants / Complainants

 

                                                         Vs.

 

The Senior Manager

Canara Bank                                                                                                                         M/s. K.P.Kiran Rao

Valasarawakkam Branch                                                                                                      Counsel for

Arcot, Chennai – 600 087                                                                                                    Respondent/ Opposite party

 

          The Appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the compensation as awarded by the District Commission vide order dt.6.8.2015 in CC.No.407/2007.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

1.       This appeal has been filed as against the order dt.6.8.2015 in CC.No.407/2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), directing the Respondent/ opposite party herein to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost on the ground of deficiency of service.  Being not satisfied against the said order, the complainants have preferred this appeal, praying for enhancement of compensation.

 

 2.      The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:

           The case of the complainant is that they are having Savings Bank joint account in the opposite party bank since 2004.  Their account Number is 4889 and they are the regular customer of the opposite party. The complainant had deposited a cheque bearing No.091528 dt.11.6.2007 drawn on ICICI Bank, Nungambakkam Branch for a sum of Rs.30,920/-. On 13.6.2007 one of the joint account holder viz. the 1^st complainant had issued a cheque bearing No.987576 drawn on the opposite party for a sum of Rs.44000/- in favour of Escrow account DLF Public issue towards purchase of shares in good faith that the cheque for Rs.30920/- deposited earlier might have realized.  But to their shock and dismay on 23.7.2007 they received back their application from HDFC Bank FIG operating Mumbai with the dishonoured cheque No.987576 dt.13.6.2007 with supportive memo dt.18.6.2007 from the opposite party, which reveals that the cheque has been dishonoured due to insufficient fund.  When they verified the status of their SB Account with the help of their pass book it was shown that the cheque No.987576 for a sum of Rs.44000/- issued by them was dishonoured on 18.6.2007 and Rs.14/- is also debited on their account as cheque return charges.  From the statement available in the passbook it is evident that the cheque for Rs.30920/- has been deposited as early as on 11.6.2007 but the same has not been realized even on 18.6.2007, even after 7 days.  Again to know the status of their account on 20.6.2006 an entry was made in the pass book which showed that a sum of Rs.30920/- was credited, towards the cheque deposited on 11.6.2006.  Hence it is proved that it took 9 days by the opposite party to realize the cheque.  Further in the pass book it shows that Rs.44000/- has been drawn as DD dt.20.6.2006 though neither of the complainants have obtained any such DD, nor did they submit any challan for such DD.  Therefore, it seems that to cover up their case, the opposite party obtained a DD for Rs.44000/- and might have sent the said DD to Escro account for purchase of shares.   Had the cheque No.091528 dt.11.6.2007 drawn on ICICI Bank, Nungambakkam branch been cleared without any delay, the cheque issued by him viz. 987576 dt.18.6.2007 would not have been dishonoured.  Because of lethargic and callous attitude of the opposite party by way of not realising the cheque deposited in time, and thus dishonouring the cheque issued by them, the complainants suffered loss of reputation and trustworthiness besides they lost their business because of non-purchase of shares of DLF which are very high return shares.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed a complaint praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.14/- towards cheque return charges, alongwith compensation of Rs.100000/- and cost of Rs.20000/-. 

 

3.       Countering the same the opposite party had filed their version stating that the complainants have chosen to give a cheque without verifying the availability of the amount.  As on the date on which the cheque was issued there was no clear balance available for clearing the amount, which is evident from the account statement of the complainants.  The complainants with the hope that the cheque for Rs.30920/- would have been cleared, issued the cheque dt.18.6.2007 for Rs.44000/- which would go to show that the complainants have issued the cheque without verifying the balance on the said date.  Therefore, there is negligence only on the part of the complainant, and the opposite party cannot be blamed for the same.  The cheque issued by the complainant for Rs.44000/- had been dishonoured for want of funds, which is evident from memo. Regarding the allegation that the said cheque for Rs.30920/- stated to have been deposited on 11.6.2007, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The fact must be that the complainant would not have deposited the cheque No.091528 dt.11.6.2007 drawn on ICICI Bank, or else they would not have dropped the cheque in the box and had the cheque been dropped in the drop box, the same would have been sent for collection, and the proceeds would have been credited to the account of the complainant.  The opposite party had found the cheque on 18.6.2007 in someother counter and thereafter sent the same for collection on the same day, and the proceeds were collected on 20.6.2007.   Therefore there is no deficiency of service on their part, and sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.       In order to prove their contentions, proof affidavits were filed alongwith documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to A8 on side of the complainant and Ex.B1 on the side of the opposite party. 

 

5.       After analysing the available materials, the District Commission had come to the conclusion that as seen from Ex.A1 viz. the Remittance challan dt.11.6.2007, it is clear that the cheque was deposited on 11.6.2007.  Had the cheque been sent for collection immediately and if the proceeds would have been credited in his account, then the further cheque issued by the complainant for Rs.44000/- would have been cleared.  Thus holding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the District Commission, had passed an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- towards compensation for mental agony, alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-.  Against the said order passed, the opposite party had not filed any appeal therefore the order passed by the District Commission shall hold good.  But the complainant being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Commission, had filed this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Commission. 

 

6.       We have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side, and perused the materials available on record.  The only question that has to be decided here is whether the compensation awarded by the District commission is to be enhanced or not?

 

7.       The claim of the appellant/ complainant praying for enhancement of the compensation was vehemently opposed by the counsel appearing for the opposite party stating that there was no deficiency in service on their part, and the compensation awarded by the District Commission is more than sufficient, and thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8.       The Respondent/ opposite party would contend that the alleged cheque dt.11.6.2007 for Rs.30920/- had not been dropped on that date, and it was actually dropped on 18.6.2007 that too in someother counter and the opposite party meticulously found out the cheque on the said date viz.18.6.2007 and sent the same for collection.  But we found that in order to prove their contentions that the opposite party had not produced any document.

          When there arose questions from which counter they found out the cheque, and how they sent the cheque for collection when it had been dropped in someother counter, the same had not been answered. The opposite party, being an institution, cannot entertain any papers that too a cheque to be kept in someother counter without the knowledge of the concerned staff.   It is also seen that in any bank public cannot have a free access to any counter to keep any paper or take any paper without the consent of the staff. If the opposite party found that the date mentioned in the counter slip is not correct or found anyother problem in that, they could have very well informed the complainant about the same.  Therefore, the statement of the opposite party that they have found the cheque in someother counter, and with a concern they have sent it for clearance, all seems to be a cooked up story and was developed mainly to shield the negligence on the part of the opposite party.  If at all they found the cheque in someother counter it means that the same would have been kept by the staff themselves while clearing the cheques from the drop box. 

          Therefore the act of the opposite party in advancing such a false counter before the commission would definitely amount to gross negligence.  Further the act of the opposite party in not preferring any appeal against the order impugned itself would go to show that they have no valid defence to cover up their deficiency.  By the act of the opposite party in dishonouring the cheque issued to DLF limited towards the purchase of shares, the complainant might have suffered some loss.  But the complainant had also not proved the alleged loss suffered by them for awarding a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation. Therefore considering the deficiency committed by the opposite parties, we feel the compensation awarded @Rs.25000/- may be enhanced to Rs.35000/- to meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

 

9.       In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) in CC.No.407/2007 dt.6.8.2015, by enhancing the compensation to Rs.35000/- instead of Rs.25000/-, confirming the rest of the order.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.   

 

 

 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                                                                R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/d/rsj/ Open court