COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 30th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1406/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. V. Prabhakar Rao,<br /> S/o. Late B. Vasudeva Rao,<br /> Aged about 68 years,<br /> R/a No. 56, 8th Main,<br /> B.T.M. Layout I Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 029.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (S. Nagaraja)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Canara Bank,<br /> Having its Office<br /> At No. 364, 16th Main,<br /> Jayanagar IV Block,<br /> Bangalore – 560 041.<br /> Rep. by its Chief Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (H.S. Rukkoji Rao)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant has got the S.B. Account at OP Bank bearing No. 28176. As on 12.05.2008 he had a balance of Rs.1,87,882.30 at his account. In connection with his transaction he issued one cheque bearing No. 54556 for Rs.1,20,816/- in favour of Garuda Autocraft Pvt. Ltd., towards the instalment pertaining to purchase of a car. Unfortunately OP did not honour the said cheque, it was bounced with an endorsement as insufficient funds on 23.05.2008. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though he had sufficient balance at his account due to the carelessness and negligence of the OP his name and fame has been destroyed, he was put to embarrassment. Thus suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contenting that the cheque of the complainant was dishonoured due to system error and paucity of time factor. There is no malafide intention on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances complainant cannot allege the deficiency in service. When OP came to know of the mistake crept in due to system error on the same day during the course of tallying the day’s account, it immediately informed M/s. Garuda Auto Crafts Pvt. Ltd., to represent the said cheque and thereafter the said cheque was honoured. As such complainant has not suffered any monetary loss. OP expressed its regrets with regard to inconvenience caused to the complainant. They have also expressed their willingness to pay Rs.110/- debited by the SBI to the account of M/s. Garuda Auto Crafts Pvt. Ltd., with regard to cheque handling charges. With all that complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has got the S.B. Account at the OP bank and as on 12.05.2008 he had a balance of Rs.1,87,882.30. It is also not at dispute that complainant issued a cheque for Rs.1,20,816/- in favour of M/s. Garuda Auto Craft Pvt. Ltd., with regard to the payment of the instalment pertaining to purchase of a car. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though he had sufficient balance at his account, OP returned the said cheque with an endorsement as insufficient funds on 23.05.2008. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that the cheque was dishonoured due to system error and paucity of time factor. So one thing is admitted by the OP that though complainant had sufficient balance his cheque was dishonoured. That speaks to the carelessness and negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Of course the fact that the said mistake committed by the OP is rectified is also not at dispute. When OP came to know of the said mistake during the course of day’s transaction while tallying they immediately informed M/s. Garuda Auto Craft Pvt. Ltd., to represent the said cheque, by that time the SBI has already collected Rs.110/- as cheque handling charges. Thereafter the said cheque was represented and it was honoured by OP on 29.05.2008. That means to say there is an apparently delay of more than 15 days in honouring the said cheque by the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, merely because OP expressed its regrets with regard to the inconvenience caused to the complainant is not a solution to the mental agony and financial loss, reputation, loss suffered by the complainant. Complainant did deserves the compensation. OP has also undertaken to pay Rs.110/- the cheque handling charges deducted by the SBI. Keeping all these facts and circumstances in mind, we find the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.100/- and also pay Rs.110/- deducted by the SBI to the complainant. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.500/- as compensation, Rs.110/- towards cheque handling charges deducted by the SBI and litigation cost of Rs.100/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />