IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 08th day of April, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 48/2021 (Filed on 22-02-2021)
Petitioner : Savings Bank Account No.
075101060458 of Canara Bank,
Changanacherry Branch,
Thankachan Zacharias,
Kannady thundiyil,
North of Bishop’s palace,
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Canara Bank,
Changanassery Branch,
Opp. Private Bus Stand No.1,
Changanacherry – 686101.
Rep. by Branch Head.
2) Canara Bank,
Kurichy Branch,
Sudarsana building,
Outpost junction,
Kurichy P.O.
Rep. by Branch Head.
3) The Region Head,
Canara Bank, 1st Floor,
Kohinoor Arcade,
Samkranthi, Perumbaikadu P.O.
Kottayam – 686016.
(For Op1 to 3, Adv. A.J. Dominic)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant is a customer of the Canara Bank having SB Account No.075101060458 with the Changanacherry Branch. On 19-11-2020, the complainant visited Kurichy Branch of the Canara Bank and presented a Cheque but the Branch Head and the Branch declined to honour the Cheque . The Cheque was a self cheque for Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the action of the Branch Head and two other staff of the Kurichy Branch of Canara Bank, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Regional Head of Canara Bank on 20-11-2020. The Regional Head forwarded the petition for further action to the Branch Head of Kurichy Branch. The second opposite party Kurichy Branch Head caused to send a reply to the complainant. The replay contain only certains other happenings in the branch on 19-11-2020 which are totally irrelevant or false. There were more than one eye witnesses with the complainant, who had seen the cheque when he entered into the Kurichy Branch. The only dispute in this regard is with the Cheque presented. The Bank staff argued that the cheque was for Rs.50,000/- and it was drawn on Canara Bank, Ponkunnam branch and the complainant is not the drawer and the Cheque payable at par at all branches all over India facility is provided to the drawer of Cheque only. The Kurichy branch failed to issue the Cheque Return Memo though specifically demanded by the complainant. The indecent behavior of shouting by Branch Head to the complainant is not properly explained in the reply notice. The non-bearing of the identity card, by any of the staff of the Branch including the Branch Head is deliberate and is against the Rules and Regulations containing dress code applicable to the bank employees. The case is filed for getting reliefs as prayed for to find solution to the loss and injuries caused to complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the three opposite parties.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version jointly.
As per the version filed by the opposite parties, the complainant lodged a complaint before Regional Head, Canara Bank, Kottayam Region. The complaint was considered by the Regional Head, the Assistant General Manager. As directed by the Assistant General Manager, the Manager of Kurichy Branch had given proper explanation to the complainant by letter dated 21-01-2020. This was the action taken by the 3rd opposite party. The allegations and claims raised by the complainant were without any ground or reason and the action of the officials of Kurichy Branch on 19-11-2020 were in accordance with the rules to deal with a third party cash Cheque for an amount exceeding Rs.50,000/-. Further the copy of the Cheque which was annexed with the complaint was not the Cheque that was presented by the complainant on 19-11-2020 for encashment at the Kurichy Branch of Canara Bank. On 19-11-2020 the complainant presented a cash Cheque for Rs.70,000/- from Canara Bank, Ponkunnam for encashment at the Kurichy Branch. Payment of the Cheque could not be made as it was a third party cash Cheque and the amount of the Cheque exceeds Rs.50,000/-. The complainant was informed of the reason for non-payments. He was told that the Cheque could be encashed at the base branch. There upon the complainant took back the Cheque and went out of the Bank. There was no need for issuing Cheque Return Memo and also for making any endorsement or mark on the Cheque. The dealings of the officials of the bank with the complainant was in accordance with the banking rules and guidelines. The behavior of each one of the officials were normal, proper and decent towards the complainant. The officials were bearing identity card, and they could easily be identified. The Cheque for Rs.10,000/- was not presented by the complainant before the Kurichy Branch of Canara bank. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exts.A1 toA4. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Ongoing through the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence on records, it is clear that the complainant is maintaining an SB account having account No.075101060458 with the Changanacherry Branch of Carara Bank. The complainant approached the Kurichy Branch of the Canara Bank on 19-11-2020 with a Cheque for encashment. The Kurichy Branh officials declined to encash the Cheque. Consequently on 20-11-2020 the complaint filed a petition before the third opposite party. The third opposite party forwarded the petition to the second opposite party for necessary action and the second opposite party issued letter of explanation dated 21-12-2020 to the complainant.
Ext.A1 is a Cheque with Cheque No.583972 in the name of Thankachan Zacharias (Self) for Rupees Ten Thousand only dated 19-11-2020. Ext.A2 is the complaint filed by the complainant before the 3rd opposite party on 20-11-2020 against Kurichy Branch, Head of Canara Bank and 2 others. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt and Ext.A4 is the reply received from the Manager, Canara Bank, Kurichy, Kottayam dtd.21-12-2020.
Ext.B1 was marked by the opposite parties. Ext.B1 is the CCTV footage screen shots of the incident on 19-11-2020 at Kurichy Branch of Canara Bank. Ext.B1 was marked subject to proof. Opposite parties failed to produce any evidence to substantiate Exhibit B1.
The main contention is whether the complainant produced Ext.A1 cheque or a third party Cheque before Kurichy Branch of Canara Bank on 19-11-2020. Even though the complainant stated of having more than one eye witness with him at the time of incident who had seen the Cheque, in the complaint, he failed to examine the witness before the Commission. There is no evidence before us prove that Ext.A1 cheque is the Cheque which was produced before the Kurichy Branch of Canara Bank on 19-11-2020 by the complainant.
On the basis of the above findings, we are of the opinion that deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties was not established by the complainant. Hence Point No.1 is not found in favour of the complainant. The compliant is dismissed
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 08th day of April, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Original cheque No.583972 dtd.19-11-2020 issued by Canara Bank
A2 – Copy of complaint to the opposite parties
A3- copy of postal receipt (Subject to proof)
A4 – Letter dtd.21-12-2020
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1sereis – CC TV footage screen shot of the incident on 19-11-2020
By Order
Assistant Registrar
