BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 11th April 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.156/2013
(Admitted on 29.05.2013)
Mr. N. Subraya Bhat,
Aged 50 years,
S/o Late N. Subrahmanya Bhat,
Markaranda, Malemar Parapade Road,
Mangalore 575006.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KN)
VERSUS
Canara Bank,
Gandhinagar Branch,
Mangalore 575003
Represented by its Branch Manager.
…........OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri MSKP)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
The complainant claims he maintained an SB Account with opposite party and had balance of Rs.3,537.16 on 3.5.2011. Despite this account cheque issued by complainant in favour of Shriram Chits (K) Pvt Ltd for Rs.1,187 dated 3.5.2011 was dishonoured with insufficient of funds. The complainant was shocked for the said dishonour. On enquire with opposite party he was unable to get proper reply. Hence contending that his reputation is spoiled because of wrong return of cheque having sufficient amount in his account. Hence seeks reliefs claimed in the complaint.
II. Opposite party filed written version contending SB account maintained by complainant in its bank branch is admitted. Cheque was issued by complainant in question of No.764846 dated 3.5.2011 in favour of Shriram Chits (K) Pvt Ltd for Rs.1,187/ was dishonoured in the cheque clearing, it was due to the system being changed/upgraded and it occurred due to bonafide reasons. The claim of the compensation is baseless and is unfounded hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. N. Subraya Bhat filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents not marked. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. M.P. Nandana (RW1) Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsel for complainant side filed notes of argument. Opposite party addressed oral argument. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the party. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Partly Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i) & (ii):: The maintenance of SB Account of complainant in opposite party bank, account had insufficient balance as claimed and that the cheque issued by complainant in favour of Shriram Chits (K) Pvt Ltd for Rs.1,187/ was dishonoured with endorsement of insufficient funds are all undisputed. The only defense taken by opposite party is that the system was being upgraded and as such by oversight the cheque was dishonoured with endorsement of insufficient of the funds. However there is no evidence produced by opposite party to establish that the system was being upgraded/changed. Suffice to mention that even when the system of opposite party being upgraded in our considered view there is no justification for the dishonouring the cheque with the endorsement of the insufficient balance. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party bank that a cheque drawn on an account maintained with sufficient funds is not dishonoured. In the circumstances in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the service provider to the complainant the customer. Hence we answer point No.1 and No.2 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (iii): Coming to the question of compensation considering that a wrong endorsement was issued by opposite party of insufficient fund on the cheque drawn by complainant maintained with the opposite party bank as rightly pointed out for complainant led to complainant cutting a sorry figure and being dishonoured for not fault of his. Hence in our considered view directing opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.20,000 apart from cost is justified. Advocate fee fixed at Rs.3,000/. Wherefore the following
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed with cost. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation to complainant. Opposite party shall pay the compensation to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
2. Advocate fee fixed at Rs.3,000/ (Rupees Three thousand only)
3. If opposite party fails to make payment within the stipulated time opposite party shall pay the interest at 9% for the above said amount from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 5 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 11th April 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 N. Subraya Bhat
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainants:
Nil
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. M.P. Nandana, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 11.04.2017 PRESIDENT
