SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer protection Act 2019 for getting an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.6,32,500/- the cheque amount with interest and also compensation and cost of the proceedings of this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Complainant is the SB account holder of OP bank. Complainant submitted that on 23/10/2020, when came to OP bank in the morning for submitting a cheque of Indian Bank for Rs.6,32,500/- for collection, but it was returned on 28/10/2020 with a memo stating the reason as ‘out date’. It is sated that cheque was drawn on 24/07/2020. The validity period of the cheque is 3 months and if the cheque presented within the validity period OP should have sent the cheque for clearance within time for encashing the cheque . Without doing so and since it is retuned as ‘outdated’ the complainant had lost the opportunity to file even the cheque case against the person who issued the said cheque to the complainant. According to the complainant, due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP bank, complainant had lost Rs.6,32,500/-. Hence the complaint.
OP filed their version contended that the complainant has submitted the cheque in the box at 2.53 PM on 23/10/2020. OP pleaded that the clearing cheque should have been submitted before 1’O Clock by the customer with a request to present it on the same day for clearance. But the complainant presented the cheque after the time mentioned for presenting. On 24/10/2020 and 25/10/2020 were holidays and OP could present the cheque for clearance only after holiday. Further stated that the cheque was drawn on 24/07/2020. The validity period of the cheque is 3 months but if the cheque presented for clearance time, the bank official will present the cheque within time. The complainant has got sufficient time to present the cheque and need not wait till last date especially when two subsequent days are bank holidays. After receiving the memo the complainant never made any attempt to contact the bank. If the cheque is not presented in time it will be taken up for clearing on the next day. The procedure for presenting the cheque for clearing is that the party has present the cheque through their savings bank account branch. The said cheque has to scanned and sent to the centralized service branch. The centralized service branch will pass the clearance and credit the amount in the respective account of the customer. If the cheque is invalid or stale the same is returned by the central service branch. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the side of the OP. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The power of Attorney holder of the complainant (Son of complainant) filed his chief affidavit and was examined as Pw1. Ext. A1 to A7 were marked. One more witness the person alleged to have accompanied with the complainant to the bank, was examined as Pw2. Both witnesses were cross-examined for the OP. On the side of OP one document the CCTV footage was produced marked as Ext.B1 with objection of complainant. After that the learned counsel for complainant has filed written argument note.
The undisputed facts in this case are that he complainant is an account holder of OP bank. Further the date of drawn the cheque in dispute was on 24/07/2020. The validity period of the cheque is 3 months from the date put on it.
Complainant alleged that she came to the bank on 23/10/2020 on the morning of submitting the cheque for clearing it and OP had given payment slip also dated 23/10/2020 Ext.A2. But the cheque was returned on 28/10/2020 without honoring it, with a memo stating the reason “outdated”. According to the complainant, though the cheque was presented for clearance within the validity period to OP, retuned with reason ‘outdated’ is a deficiency in service on the part of OP bank.
On the other hand OP stated that the complainant has submitted the cheque in the box at 2.53 PM on 23/10/2020. OP pleaded that the clearing cheque should have been submitted before 1’O Clock by the customer with a request to present it on the same day for clearance. But the complainant presented the cheque after the time mentioned for presenting.
For proving the contention, OP submitted Ext.B1 CCTV Footage of the particular day ie 23/10/2020. On perusal of Ext.B1, it is seen that complainant presented the cheque to OP bank on 2.50 PM on 23/10/2020. OP submitted that the clearance time is mentioned in the notice board as well as the cheque drop box. Further, complainant has presented the cheque for clearance only after the time mentioned in the notice board. Further, contended that if the cheque is not presented in time it will be taken up for clearing on next day 24/10/2020 and 25/10/2020 next two days were holidays and OP could present the cheque for clearance only after holiday. Further, stated that the cheque was drawn on 24/07/2020. The validity period of the cheque is 3 months but if the cheque presented for clearance time, the bank official will present the cheque within time.
Here, it is a fact that complainant has presented the cheque only on 23/10/2020 at 2.50 PM. The cheque date is 24/07/2020. Here the complainant has got sufficient time to present the cheque and need not wait till last date especially when two subsequent days are bank holidays. More over the cheque in question is of drawn on Indian bank, Salavakkam. Bazaar street, Tamil Nadu.
Hence from considering the entire facts of this case, we are of the view that complainant had not presented the cheque for clearance in the validity period. So OP could not get time for sending it to bank of the person who issued the cheque ie Indian Bank Salavakkam Bazaar streat, Tamil Nadu for clearance. So there is deficiency on the part of complainant herself.
In the result complaint is dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1-Cheque of Indian bank
A2-Receipt issued OP
A3-Cheque return memo
A4-Notice issued b complainant to OP
A5&A6-Reply by OP
A7-Inward return report
B1- CCTV Footage
Pw1-son of the complainant
Pw2-Nithyanandan-Witness of complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
