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 218/10 DATED 08.07.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri. Ramesh Kini D.S. No.316, 1st floor, Hyderali Road, Nazarbad, N.R. Daulathrao Choltry, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. G.C., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Nazarbad Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. H.C.P.., Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 27.05.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 11.06.2010<br /> Date of order : 08.07.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 27 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 /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in Banking Service that in spite of sufficient amount in the account, the cheque has been dishonoured. Hence, compensation and cost is claimed.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party in the version denying the allegations in the complaint has contended that, at the time of presentation of the cheque, there was no balance, but later amount was credited into the account.<br /> <br /> 3. In support of their respective contentions both the parties have filed their affidavits and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments 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 on the point is in negative for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Certain facts are admitted, which needs no mention.<br /> 7. According to the complainant he had given a cheque to HDFC Bank, for a sum of Rs.1,020/- dated 10.11.2009, towards the EMI. When the HDFC Bank presented the cheque for realization, opposite party Bank has returned it with an endorsement “insufficient funds”.<br /> <br /> 8. The opposite party in the version has stated that, the said cheque was presented at 10.9 A.M. and at that point of time, there was no balance to honour the cheque. However, later, on the same day at 1.8.29 P.M. in the S.B. account of the complainant, there was credit covering the amount of the said cheque. To substantiate this fact, senior manager of the opposite party Bank has filed his affidavit and also produced documents.<br /> <br /> 9. It is specific and definite contention of the opposite party that, cheque was presented for encashment at 10.9 A.M. and on the same day at 1.8.9 P.M. amount was credited into the said account stated in the version and the affidavit, which is collaborated by the documents, is not at all denied or disputed by the complainant. Hence, absolutely we have no reason to disbelieve the said fact put forth by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 10. Consequently, when the cheque was presented for encashment at 10.9 A.M., there was no amount in the account of the complainant to honour the same and as such, it has been dishonoured. Thus, the contention of the complainant that in spite of sufficient fund in the account, opposite party has dishonoured the cheque is false or incorrect. Prior to filing the complaint, complainant had issued notice to the opposite party and the opposite party has given reply. Though the learned advocate for the complainant vehemently argued that, in the notice, opposite party has not mentioned the time of deposit of the amount from the reply, it can be seen the mention of “ there was no sufficient balance to honour the said cheque on DATE and TIME OF PRESENTATION”. Further, in the reply, it is mentioned that “ however on the self same DATE ONLY after the alleged cheque was dishonoured----- the amount received covering the amount under the cheque”. Hence, in fact much prior to filing the complaint, promptly opposite party had replied the notice of the complainant and in spite of it complainant has filed the present complaint, which deserves to be dismissed with cost. Accordingly, following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to the complainant 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 7th July 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 />