Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the Complainant who has approached this Forum against the Opposite parties is that he is having an account with the 1st Opposite party Bank, had presented a D.D. for Rs.1,07,620/-, which was due to him as arrears of his salary on 29.11.2006 to the 1st Opposite party for collection. The 1st Opposite party on 01.12.2006 shown to have credited that amount to his account, but on 02.12.2006 withdrew the entry by showing debit. Further on 06.12.2006 shown credit of that amount in his account, but again debited on 07.12.2006. Then again on 09.12.2006 the said amount was credited to his account, but on 12.12.2006 debited it. Further on 18.12.2006 shown credit, but on 19.12.2006 debited the same, which are reflected in his passbook. The 1st Opposite party on 21.12.2006 finally credited that amount to his account after lapse of 22 days. Then on 14.02.2007 he addressed a letter to the Opposite party asking for the reasons for the delay for which the 1st Opposite party on 25.10.2007 given a reply stating that delay is due to technical and wrong entries. He had arranged the marriage of his daughter at Mysore on 30.11.2006 and he had issued two cheques to the cook who prepared food for the marriage of his daughter, when the presented the cheques for encashment only one cheque was honoured and the other cheque was bounced. As the result, the cook approached him for payment and this act of the 1st Opposite party has caused embracement in presence of other people and therefore has prayed for a direction to the 1st Opposite party for paying him interest of Rs.1,880/- for the delayed payment and also to award damages of Rs.50,000/-. <br /> 2. At the first instance the Complaint was presented only against the 1st Opposite party. The 1st Opposite party when filed version through his advocate contended that D.D. was sent to SBM Mysore Branch for collection, but that SBM returned the cheque on 4 occasions there was no fault on their part, it is the SBM is liable to explain the necessary delay and contended that the SBM which is the payee bank has caused delay and deficiency therefore prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. <br /> 3. On the said contention of the 1st Opposite party, the Complainant impleaded SBM, Bamboo Bazaar Branch, as the 2nd Opposite party, who has filed the version denied the allegations of the 1st Opposite party and contended that the 1st Opposite party is misguiding in order to evade its lapse and has further contended that all of them are required to follow the procedure of MICR clearing, that every bank is identified by the sort code which has been already fed to system while formulating premium itself which is common through out the country. But the 1st Opposite party while sending the D.D. for collection instead of writing its code No. 570006020 written the code No.000002000 which is the code of SBM and therefore the D.D. had gone to SBI and it was not sent to the exact banker to whom it was supposed to be sent. Due to this wrong coding of sort codes by the 1st Opposite party on four occasion, the D.D. was returned which is right procedure in clearing out transaction. On the 5th occasion that is on 21.12.2006 corrected the sort code and entered the same on the backside of the demand draft and then the presenting banker i.e., itself paid the instrument accordingly. Therefore, attributing deficiency to the 1st Opposite party, this Opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint against it.<br /> 4. In the course of enquiry into the Complaint grievance, the Complainant and the Senior Manager of the 1st Opposite party and one K.P.Pradyumna have filed their affidavit evidence. Both the parties have reiterated the contents, what they have stated in their respective Complaint and versions.<br /> 5. The Complainant has produced copies of the account extract issued by the 1st Opposite party and reply given by the 1st Opposite party. The 1st Opposite party has also produced the copy of the account of the Complainant with the Xerox copy of the instrument in question. Heard the Complainant in person, counsel for the 1st Opposite party and 2nd Opposite party in person and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 6. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that Opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in causing delay of 22 days in crediting an amount of Rs.1,07,620/- to his account?<br /> 2. What relief and against whom the Complainant is entitled to?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative. <br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Points no. 1 and 2:- The fact that the complainant had presented a D.D. for Rs.1,07,620/- to 1st Opposite party on 29.11.2006 for collection is not disputed by the 1st Opposite party. On the contrary, the 1st Opposite party has contended that they had sent the D.D. to the State Bank of Mysore Branch, which was a drawee Bank for collection on 4 occasions i.e. 01.12.2006, 06.12.2006, 09.12.2006 and 16.12.2006 and the same was returned to them by the SBM on 02.12.2006, 07.12.2006, 12.12.2006 and 17.12.2006 without honouring it, wrongly and thereby have contended that they have not committed any deficiency in their service in debiting the amount from the account of the complainant on 4 occasions and have stated that they believing that the D.D. would be honoured by the SBM credited the D.D. amount to the account of the complainant. But, the D.D. was when returned wrongly by the SBM, they had to reverse those entries. It is because of this stand taken by the 1st Opposite party, the complainant impleaded the Manager of SBM Service Branch, Mysore, who have filed their version and affidavit denying all the allegations of the 1st Opposite party and stated that the 1st Opposite party had never sent the D.D. in question to them for collection and have further stated that each Bank being provided a code number, the 1st Opposite party while sending that D.D. instead of sending it to them by giving their code No.570006020 had entered code No.000002000 which is code number of SBI and therefore, the D.D. had been wrongly sent to SBI and that the 1st Opposite party in order to evade their responsibility have made false allegations against it. This contention of the 2nd Opposite party has not been controverted by the 1st Opposite party. In the course of arguments also, the 1st Opposite party was called upon to furnish the particulars or the documents to show that the D.D. presented by the complainant was sent to the 2nd Opposite party for collection, for which they failed to furnish any sort of particulars or documents. Even the 2nd Opposite party in the version has taken a stand that 1st Opposite party has not produced any documents to prove that they had sent that D.D. to them for collection. Thus, it is evident that there is no substance in the contention of the 1st Opposite party and it has also not controverted the contention of 2nd Opposite party regarding 1st Opposite party entering wrong code pertaining to the SBI instead of entering the code number of SBM. This wrong entry made by the 1st Opposite party on the instrument led to the delay in crediting the D.D. amount to the account of the complainant, as such it is the 1st Opposite party who has committed deficiency in its service. The 1st Opposite party as could be seen from their version and also in the affidavit have mislead this Forum by stating as if they had sent the D.D. for collection to SBM on 4 occasions, which nothing is but false. This act of 1st Opposite party has resulted in deficiency in the service rendered to the complainant and also mislead this Forum to the factual aspects of the case.<br /> 9. The complainant has not disputed that the D.D. amount was finally credited to his account on 21.12.2006 i.e. after lapse of 22 days. The complainant further contended that he had issued 2 cheques to a cook who had prepared food in the marriage of his daughter, his one cheque was honoured and the other cheque was bounced, because of non-crediting of the D.D. amount to his account and it has resulted in dis-honour of his reputation and thus has prayed for damages. The complainant has not produced the bounced cheque of his cook and he has not presented any materials that the act of this 1st Opposite party, resulting in dis-honour of his reputation. However, it is a fact that the complainant was denied of his money for a period of 22 days, as such the complainant has to be compensated. The 1st Opposite party as could be seen from the facts of the case and as pointed out by us above besides committing grave error in not sending the D.D. to the proper Bank by putting proper code number has also shown courage of misleading to this Forum by giving wrong information in the complaint and also in the affidavit evidence. It is this act of the 1st Opposite party tend to lot of inconvenience and hardship to a customer. In order to arrest this attitude we propose to impose some damages against them. As the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The 1st Opposite party is directed to pay damages of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which it shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The 1st Opposite party is also directed to remit a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which it shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment and it shall recover the entire amount from the concerned official or officer who had wrongly sent the D.D. for collection and caused delay in crediting the amount to the account of the complainant.<br /> 4. The 1st Opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 5. The complaint against the 2nd Opposite party is dismissed.<br /> 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 2nd April 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br />