IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 194/10 DATED 30.06.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant J. Sathish S/o M. Javaraiah, D.No. 142, 15th cross, Anikethana Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.<br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Manager, Canara Bank, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. H.C.P., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 20.05.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 04.06.2010<br /> Date of order : 30.06.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 26 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Alleging deficiency in Banking service on the part of the opposite party, complainant has filed the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.25,000/-, for mental agony and inconvenience caused and to direct the opposite party to furnish the Rules relating to encashment of the cheque and thirdly to direct the opposite party to furnish written explanation for the inconvenience caused.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party in the version has denied the deficiency in service and narrated certain facts at length stating that, the complainant insisted for payment of the amount through withdrawal slip from his account before the cheque that he had given was collected.<br /> <br /> 3. In support of his case, complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, opposite party also has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of the complainant in person and of the learned advocate for the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding is in negative for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. The complainant has sought three reliefs. Firstly, compensation of Rs.25,000/, for mental agony. Secondly, to direct the opposite party to furnish in writing Rules relating to encashment of cheques and thirdly, to direct the opposite party to give proper written explanation, for the inconvenience caused.<br /> 7. So for concern to second relief as to the Rules regarding encashment of cheques, the complainant can applying and obtain by paying necessary fees or charges in the matter. As regards, third relief of written explanation of the opposite party for the alleged inconvenience, such prayer cannot be granted and even otherwise, opposite party has filed written version to the complaint.<br /> <br /> 8. Now, coming to consider the main relief of compensation, at the out set, according to the complainant on 17.05.2010, he had submitted a cheque to the opposite party for collection and since complainant was in need of money, on 18.05.2010 requested the opposite party for payment of some amount , but it was told the cheque was to be cleared, the complainant was called upon by the opposite party on 19.05.2010. According to the complainant his further grievance is that, on 19.05.2010 at 1.30 P.M. he got made entries in the pass book and noticed credit entry of Rs.1,00,000/-. When he submitted pay slip for a sum of Rs.35,000/- amount was not paid. Thus, in substance, according to the complainant even though there was credit entry for Rs.1,00,000/- in the pass book, his withdrawal slip for Rs.35,000/- was not honoured.<br /> <br /> 9. Regarding the grievance of the complainant referred to above with reference to the documents, learned advocate for the opposite party pointed out that, in fact the cheque that the complainant had submitted for clearance was cleared and fund available on 19.05.2010 at 4.10 P.M. In this regard, copy obtained through computer is produced. Hence, from this document, it is made out that, the amount was available on the said date only at 4.40 P.M. As could be seen from the endorsement made on the application of the complainant by the opposite party Bank that, said complaint was received at 2.30 P.M. Before 2.30 P.M. as stated in the complaint withdrawal slip was submitted by the complainant to the opposite party. He had submitted withdrawal slip at 2.00 P.M. Hence, it is clear that, when withdrawal slip was presented by the complainant, there was no balance available in the account of the complainant to honour the withdrawal slip. Hence, the grievance of the complainant that, the opposite party did not honour the withdrawal slip, cannot be appreciated. The entry in the pass book was only that aa cheque was given for collection.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant further submitted that, in the notice board displayed by the opposite party in the Bank, there is mentioned that, in case of out station cheques given for collection, up to Rs.15,000/- withdrawal is permitted where as in the case on hand, it was local cheque and the opposite party Bank could have honoured the withdrawal slip. Honouring the cheque or withdrawal slip in the absence of the balance in the account, after a cheque was given for clearance, is certainly within the discretion of the Bank, depending on various aspects. As of right, customer or account holder cannot insist the Bank to honour the cheque in the absence of balance in the account.<br /> <br /> 11. The complainant has alleged that, the opposite party made him to move from place to place to get Xerox copy of the application as well as in the matter of acknowledgement etc., etc.,. But all this relates to honouring of the withdrawal slip, in the absence of the balance in the account. Hence, we feel it not necessary to discuss the same in detail.<br /> <br /> 12. Considering the facts and material on record and the discussion made here before, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 30th June 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />