Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/141/2013

P.Purushothaman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

P.Vinodh Kumar

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   08.01. 2013

                                                                        Date of Order :   24.07.2015.

 

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

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

 

C.C.NO.141/2013

              FRIDAY THIS   24^TH   DAY OF JULY  2015     

 

Mr. P. Purushothaman,

NO.150, 17^th Street,

Kannigapuram,

Velachery Road,

Guindy,

Chennai 600 032.                                           ..Complainant

                                                 ..Vs..

 

1. The Branch Manager,

    Canara Bank,

    Saidapet Branch,

    Chennai 600 015.

 

2. The General Manager,

    Canara Bank,

    Head Office,

    No.112, J.C. Road,

    Bangalore 560 002.                                     .. Opposite parties.

 

 

For the Complainant             :  M/s. P. Vinodh Kumar & another  

 

For the  opposite parties       :  M/s. K.P. Kiran Rao & another.

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards deficiency of service with cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

        The complainant is the customer of the 1^st opposite party and he is having savings account bearing account No.0933101032545 since 4.7.2005.  The complainant is maintaining the said account without any default on his side.   The available balance in the said account shall not be lesser than Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant is utilizing cheque facility in the said account.    He used to give cheque for his daughter’s school fees.   Therefore on 19.9.2011 he issued a cheque dated 19.9.2011 bearing No.664131 drawn on Canara Bank drawn in the name of Gurunank Matriculation Higher Secondary School for a sum of Rs.1880/-.    He received a call from his daughter’s school informing him that the cheque NO.664131 dated 19.9.2011 was returned by the 1^st opposite party for insufficient funds.  Then the complainant made a phone call to the 1^st opposite party asking about the returning of the cheque though he had Rs.1,26,389.75 in his account.   The 1^st opposite party never bothered to answer the query raised by the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party had disconnected the phone without giving any answer.    Then he went to the 1^st opposite party branch and asked about the return of the cheque.   The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to verify his account statement as there was Rs.1,26,389.75 in his account on 19.9.2011.   The 1^st opposite party without verifying the complainant’s account returned the cheque issued by the complainant for a sum of Rs.1880/-.   The 1^st opposite party never adhered the request of the complainant.   The complainant wrote a letter to the  opposite parties through registered post on 28.9.2011 stating that cheque No.664131 was returned for insufficient funds though he had maintained sufficient funds in his account.   The opposite parties received the said letter and never bothered to give any reply.     As such the act of the opposite parties are amounts to deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Hence the complaint. 

2.  Written version of   opposite parties are   as follows:-

The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law and on the facts of the case.   The opposite party does not admit any of the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted herein.   When the complainant had come to the branch, they had informed him that the cheque are cleared at the Local Processing Cell and not by the branches as per the new centralized cheque processing system introduced by RBI during September 2011 and that they will enquire with LPC and inform him.  Allegations to the contrary are denied as false and incorrect.   During September 2011 RBI brought about a new system for clearing of cheques  called cheque truncation system which is made mandatory for all the banks.  During September 2011 this new CTS system came to vogue and banks faced lot of teething problems and problems due to technical snags.  As per RBI guidelines the clearing of cheques was processed centrally at their accounts section.  The  complainant enquired about the dishonor of the cheque, the 1^st opposite party immediately took up the matter with their centralized cheque processing Cell LPC.  Upon verification it was found that the cheque issued by the complainant to the school was stamped by the Drawee’s bank i.e. the school’s bankers, viz., Corporation Bank, Velachery Branch and sent through RBI to LPC of Canara Bank for processing.   The drawee’s Bankers had negligently affixed their Corporation Bank seal on the account number mentioned in the cheuqe and therefore the account number of the drawer of the cheque, the complainant herein, appeared as 0933101032546.  The cheque was processed under the impression that the account number was 0933101032546 while the complainant’s account number was 0933101032545. 

3.     Since there was no balance in the said account number 0933101032546 the cheque happened to be returned.   The Local Processing Cell has processed the cheque under the bonafide belief that the account number was 0933101032546 which confusion was solely caused due to the negligent manner in which the seal was affixed right on the account number mentioned in the cheque issued by the complainant by the Corporation bank, the banker of the school.  Since there was no balance in the said account number 093310103246 the bank had returned the cheque.   Therefore the return of the cheque was neither willful nor wanton but it is obviously and inadvertent human error caused by the reason stated above.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   Therefore the opposite parties pray this forum to dismiss the complaint. 

4.     Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite parties have  filed his proof affidavit and  no document was  marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

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

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

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINTS 1  & 2 :

          Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and written version filed by the  opposite parties and proof affidavit  of both parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 filed on the side of  the complainant and considered the both side arguments.   It is admitted that the complainant is maintaining his saving bank account No.0933101032545 in which on the relevant date i.e. 19.09.2011 the balance amount available in his credit is Rs.1,26,389.75, the same were evidenced by Ex.A1.   Further it is also admitted fact that the complaint mentioned cheque issued by the complainant dt.19.09.2011 for Rs.1,880/- was presented by the bankers’ of Gurunank Matriculation Higher Secondary School i.e. the Corporation Bank and the same was returned without encashment as “NO SUFFICIENT AMOUNT AVAILABLE”   The same is evidenced by the Ex.A2 to Ex.A4.

7.     According to the complainant since on the relevant date i.e. 19.09.2011, a sum of Rs.1,26,389.75 is available in his credit, the return of the cheque on the ground of insufficient fund is unreasonable as such the 1^st opposite party bank has committed deficiency in service in processing the said cheque in proper manner, as such the  opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly responsible for the same and claim compensation against them.

8.     Whereas the opposite parties have categorically raised objection in the written version and proof affidavit that they are not responsible for the said return of cheque, but they came to know due to the in advertent act of the drawee banker i.e. Corporation Bank in mentioning the account number while processing the cheque under prevailing new system for clearing of cheques called Cheque Transaction System (CTS) which  is made mandatory for all the banks from September 2011.  The Drawee’s Bankers had negligently affixed their Corporation bank seal on the cheque Account No. as 0933101032546 instead of correct account number  of complainant’s account No.0933101032545, so that the said cheque had been  returned  as no sufficient fund on the  basis of the account no wrongly mentioned in the cheque at the time of processing for encashment.  Therefore even the said act of the Corporation bank which processing the said cheque for encashment under (CTS) is also not wanton and inadvertent mistake only, for which these opposite parties are not responsible,  as such no deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties as attributed by the complainant.  Therefore the complaint is to be dismissed, for the said contention the opposite parties are also referred the account number mentioned by the Corporation Bank while processing the said cheque under CTC for clearance, the same is evidenced by Ex.A2 where it is mentioned Account No.0933101032546 and sealed under the same by the Corporation Bank.

9.     The said contention of the opposite parties is acceptable.  Therefore even as mentioned  above the mistake in mentioning wrong Account No. of the complainant in the cheque while processing under CTC for encashment is done by the Corporation bank.  The said Corporation Bank is not a party to this  proceedings. 

10.    Therefore we are of the considered view that  as contended by the opposite parties for the return of complaint mentioned cheque the opposite parties are not responsible and the deficiency of service attributed by the complainant against the opposite parties are not proved, as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint  against opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances parties have to bear their own cost of litigation and as such the points 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.

        In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs.  

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 24^th  day of July 2015.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                PRESIDENT

Complainant’s side documents

Ex.A1-       -      - Copy of Canara Bank pass book.

Ex.A2- 19.9.2011 - Copy of cheque issued Guru Nanak Higher Secondary

                           School.

 

Ex.A3- 19.9.2011 - Copy of School Fees Receipt issued Corporation bank.

 

Ex.A4- 21.9.2011- Copy  of cheque Bounce returns Memo.

 

Ex.A5- 1.10.2011  Copy of letter by complainant to opposite parties

 

Ex.A6- 4.11.2011 - Copy of email reply by Senior Superintendent Post

                            Office.

 

Opposite party’ side documents : -          .. Nil..

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                    PRESIDENT .