Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

407/2007

Lakshimi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

P.Kartikeyan

06 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                         Date of Filing :   21.09.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :   06.08.2015.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                      : PRESIDENT

                 TR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER I

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A.L.L.B.,                                   : MEMBER II

 

                             C.C.NO.407/2007

THURSDAY THIS 6^th DAY OF AUGUST 2015

 

1.   R. Lakshmi,

W/o. Late Subramaniyam

 

2. S. Sathish Kumar,

S/o. Late Subramaniyam,

Both are residing at

No.14/7, Varadarajasamy Nagar,

Maduravoyal,

Chennai – 95.                                               ..Complainants

                                                 ..Vs..

 

Senior Manager,

Rep. by its Canara Bank,

M/s. Canara Bank,

Valasaravakkam Branch,

Chennai 600 087.                                          .. Opposite party.

 

For the Complainants           :   M/s. P.Karthikeyan & another     

 

For the Opposite party         :  M/s. T.C. A. Shrinivasan & others.

  

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.14/- towards cheque return charges and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as cost  of the proceeding to the complainant.      

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT        

 

         

The complaint in brief: -

1.    Complainants are having joint SB account with the opposite party bank.  They have deposited a cheque on 11.6.2007 for a sum of Rs.30,920/- drawn on ICICI bank, Nungambakkam branch for realization.  Complainant issued a cheque dated 13.6.2007 in favour of Escrow account DLF public issue drawn on the opposite party for a sum of Rs.44,000/-.    The opposite party have debited the cheque amount of Rs.30,920/-  after a lapse of 7 days.  Had it been realized immediately, the cheque issued by them would not have been dishonoured.  Dishonour of cheque has caused business loss and reputation.   Accordingly the complainants have issued a legal notice on 31.7.2007  to the opposite party demanding Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation  but as on date no reply has been received.   As such the  deficiency of service committed by the opposite party.   Hence the complaint.

 

Counter in brief:

2.    The opposite party denies the truth and correctness of all the allegations in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and is an abuse of process of law and lacks bona fides and merits and is not maintainable either in law and on the facts of the case.    The complainants have been operating accounts with the opposite party bank and is a customer of the opposite party and the complainants are well aware of the Banking procedures and operations.   Though the complainants have chosen to give the particulars of the cheque like the date, number drawn on bank, but have clearly omitted to mention the date of deposit of the cheque into the opposite party bank and also drawer’s name.    This itself shows that the complainant had not deposited the cheque on 11.6.2007.   The complainants clearly admit that they have without verifying their account on the availability of the amounts, have issued the cheque towards a public issue of a sum of Rs.44,000/- on 13.6.2007.  As on the said date there is no clear balance available in the complainant’s account for clearing the said cheque and the same is evident from the account statement of the complainants.  

3.    The opposite party states that the cheque issued by the complainants for Rs.44,000/- had been dishonoured for want of funds as is evident from Memo dated 18.6.2007, the allegation that the cheque for Rs.30,920/- stated to have been deposited on 11.6.2007 is denied and the complainants are put to strict proof the same.   Further the complainants have not deposited the cheque on 11.6.2007 as falsely stated in the compliant.   Even assuming without admitting that the complainant had wanted to deposit the said cheque dated 11.6.2007 into their account, the complainants had not deposited the same in the drop box on 11.6.2007, but the opposite party had on 18.6.2007 found the cheque at some other counter and the opposite party had sent the same for collection on the same day i.e. 18.6.2007 and the proceeds of the cheque was credit on 20.6.2007.   The opposite party further stated that the complainant had visited the bank on 18.6.2007 on which date only the complainants had left the cheque dated 11.6.2007 in some other counter and the said cheque was sent for collection on 18.6.2007 and was cleared on 20.6.2007.   No material has been filed by the complainants to show that the complainants had deposited the cheque on 11.6.2007 as alleged, except that the counterfoil filed by the complainant with seal of the bank, not bearing a date seal and signature of the opposite party staff, dated 11.6. 2007.     The complainants have clearly admitted that they did not verify their account of the availability of sufficient amount, before issuing the cheque dated 13.6.2007 and in any even for the fault of the complainants, this opposite party bank cannot be held liable.  

4.     It is leading nationalized bank and could not have intentionally caused delay in crediting the cheque  for Rs.30,920/- and fro the foregoing it is very clear that the complainants have been negligent in not dropping the cheque into the drop box, but have just left it negligently lying in one of the counters of the bank, which the opposite party has however diligently found and sent the same for clearing and credited into the account of the complainants.   Therefore the complaint as against the opposite party is liable to be dismissed.  

 

5.     Complainants have filed their Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainants.    Opposite party  have filed their proof affidavit and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.  

6.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

7. POINTS 1 & 2 :

         Perused the complaint filed by the complainants,  written version filed by the opposite party, proof affidavit of both parties  and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8  filed on the side of the complainants and the documents Ex.B1  filed on the side of the opposite party  and considered the both side arguments.  There is no dispute between the parties that the complainants are having joint S.B. account with the opposite party bank.  The complainants case is that they have deposited a cheque dated 11.6.2007 for a sum of Rs.30,920/- drawn on ICICI bank Nunambakkam Branch for realization with the opposite party bank on 11.6.2007.  Whereas the cheque has not been sent by the opposite party for collection in time but belatedly sent on 18.6.2007 and the amount was realized and credited in  their account on 20.6.2007, the said delay committed by the opposite party has caused the return of cheque issued by them for purchase share to  Escrow  account DLF public issue for a sum of Rs.44,000/- on 16.6.2007 as in sufficient fund which caused the complainant   a loss of profit in purchasing the said share as such the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party in sending the cheque for collection in delay and claims compensation as against the opposite party.

 8.    Whereas the opposite party has resisted the claim of the complainant stating that the said cheque has not been deposited in the bank on 11.6.2007 but it was dropped by the complainant in the bank without adopting proper procedure and the said cheque was found out in this some other counter of the bank on 18.6.2007 and was sent for collection and on the same date the amount was realized and credited in their account on 20.6.2007  as per entries found in Ex.B1 as such there is no delay in the sending the said cheque for collection and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and further contented that the another cheque dated 13.6.2007 issued by the complainants for Rs.44,000/- was came to encashment to the opposite party bank on 16.6.2007 as on the said date there is no sufficient fund in  the account of the complainants as such the said cheque has been returned without encashment.  Therefore for the return of the said cheque without encashment is due to in sufficient fund on the relevant date in the account of the complainant, as such they are not responsible for any loss incurred by the complainant and the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants as prayed for  in the complainant and the complaint is to be dismissed.

9.     The complainant has filed Ex.A1 the remittance slip for the deposit of the said cheque dated 11.6.2007 for Rs.30,920/- in which the bank seal also found.  Therefore as stated by the complainants the said cheque is deposited with the opposite party bank a remittance form Ex.A1 on 11.6.2007 is acceptable,  since the date 11.6.2007 is also found mentioned in the remittance slip as well as bank seal also found in the same.  Contrary to this the contention of the opposite party that the Ex.A1 remittance slip dated 11.6.2007 it is not deposited / remitted in the opposite party bank on the said date but would have been dropped in the bank  by the complainants on his visit to the bank on that day in some other counter of the bank is not acceptable.  Further in order to prove the said contention raised by the opposite party that the said cheque has been deposited / remitted in the bank only by way of dropping out the same in some other counter in the bank  it is the duty bound for the opposite party to prove the same by producing necessary document for collection of remittance form dated 11.6.2007 and 18.6.2007 maintained by the bank.  Whereas the opposite party has not produced such document in order to prove the same.   Further the opposite party not even produced counterfoil of remittance form of Ex.A1 which would have been attached with the said cheque.  If the contention of the opposite party is true they may very well make necessary endorsement on the counterfoil of the remittance form of Ex.A1 which has been found along with the said cheque on 18.6.2007 and necessary endorsement of notes would have been made on the same for the receipt of the said cheque and counterfoil of Ex.A1 remittance form as on 18.6.2007.  Whereas the opposite party has not produced such document also in this proceedings in support of their contention.   Contrary to this the contention  made by the opposite party that it is the burden on the complainants to prove taht the said cheque with Ex.A1 remittance form was deposited in the bank on 11.6.2007 is not acceptable.   Further the contention made by the opposite party that the Ex.A1 has not contained a date seal of the bank as such the said document cannot be said to have been filed on 11.6.2007 is also not acceptable.  Since it is not proved by the opposite party that they are keeping the date seal for the customer to put on the remittance form in their counter for dropping the remittance form in the bank. 

 

10.    Further, admittedly the said alleged cheque is of the ICICI Bank, Nungambakkam Branch cheque if the said cheque would have been sent for collection on 11.6.2007 itself the amount would have been realized for encashment and the same would have been credited in the account within two days as admitted by the opposite party in the case of another cheque.  Therefore the complainants contention that with expectation of the said cheque being processed in time and amount would have been available in the bank, the complainants have given cheque Ex.A2 for purchasing of the share is acceptable.   Contrary to this the contention of the opposite party that the complainants have given the said Ex.A2 cheque without verifying the availability of  fund in their account is on their fault for which the opposite party is not responsible are all not acceptable.

 

11.    Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party have committed gross negligence in processing the complaint mentioned cheque dated 11.6.2007 for Rs.30,920/- which was deposited by the complainants on 11.6.2007 to encash to send the same for collection in time but belatedly sent the said cheque on 18.6.2007 only and encashed and the same is credited in the account of complainants on 20.6.2007 is amounts to deficiency of service which caused the return of another cheque issued by the complainants for purchasing of share as such the complainants have suffered mental agony and hardship is acceptable.    Though the complainants have claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation  is very exorbitant the opposite party  is liable to pay a sum of  Rs.25,000/- as just and reasonable compensation to the complainant and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainants and as such the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainants.

           In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as  compensation for mental agony  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupee Five thousand  only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainants  within  six weeks  from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order passed till the date of realization.       

 Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this  6^th    day of August  2015.

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                                                    PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 11.6.2007      - Copy of remittance from.

Ex.A2- 13.6.2007      - Copy of cheque No. 987576

Ex.A3-                              - Copy of application for purchase of share with ack. slip.

Ex.A4-18.6.2007       - Copy of Memorandum of Cheque unpaid.

Ex.A5-   -               - Copy of pass book.

Ex.A6- 31.7.2007      - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A7- 2.8.2007        - Copy of Ack. card.

Ex.A8-                    -        - Copy of stock exchange index extract of news paper.  

 

Opposite party’s side documents: -   

 

Ex.B1-           -        -        - Copy of statement of account.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                                                    PRESIDENT.