Date of Complaint : 27.08.2012
Date of Order :29.03.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 204 / 2012
THIS TUESDAY 29th DAY OF MARCH 2016
V. Murugan,
S/o. Vellaichamy,
NO.7H, Anandam Colony,
V.M. Chatram Road,
Tirunelveli 627 011. .. Complainant.
- Vs- 1. The Manager, City Union Bank Ltd., T.Nagar Branch, Chennai 600 017. 2. The Chairman, City Union Bank Ltd., Central Office, 149, T.S.R. Big Street, Kumbakonam 612 001. 3. Mr.Rajesh Varma, Chief General Manager, Customer Service Department, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Amar Bhawan 1st Floor, SIR P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. .. Opposite parties. | . | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : Party in person.
For the opposite party-1 : M/s. Mohammed Fayaz Ali
For the opposite party-2 : Expate.
For the opposite party-3 : Appeared in RBI, Chennai.
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the deficiency of service and also to pay the cost of the complaint to the complainant.
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant is having savings bank account at City Union Bank Tuticorin Branch. Under the core banking system he presented a City Bank draft bearing No.11152 dated 21.9.2010 of Rs.10,000/- to be realized at Corporation Bank Tuticorin to the 1st opposite party on 23.9.2010. The 1st opposite party instead of sending the draft to Tuticorin branch of City Union bank had wrongly sent to Corporation Bank, Chennai. But the Corporation Bank Chennai has returned the above draft on 24.9.2010 to the City Union Bank, T.Nagar Branch with the remarks “Not drawn on us” .
2. The 1st opposite party received the above draft on 25.9.2010 and kept in the bank but there was no communication until 28.9.2010. Hence the complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 28.9.2010. The staff informed that the draft is kept at their branch forcibly returned the said draft to the complainant on 28.9.2010 as it was returned by Corporation Bank, Chennai and the complainant represented the said draft on the same day and pointed out the lapse on the part of the 1st opposite party and requested to send it to the Tuticorin Branch so as to ensure early realization of the draft. When the complainant complained to the 2nd opposite party requesting due compensation who agreed the mistake done by the 1st opposite party in their reply letter. But the compensation amount was not paid. Hence the complainant referred to the Banking Ombudsman and Department of Banking Supervision Reserve Bank of India, Chennai. Since their reply was not satisfactory, he appealed the matter to the 3rd opposite party. But no reply from them. Besides he approached the States and Central Consumer Co-ordination council at Chennai and Noida. Both of them recommended to the District Consumer Forum for Redressal. Since there impugned action resulted in deficiency of service he issued notice dated 6.6.2012 but there was no reply from them. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony and also cost of the complaint.
3. Written Version of 1st opposite party is briefly as follows:
The 1st opposite party stated that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant presented the demand draft at their branch on 23.9.2010 drawn on Corporation Bank, Tuticorin. The said draft was sent to the Corporation Bank, Services Branch, Chennai for collection under the “Core banking system”. The purpose of sending the draft for collection to Chennai branch is to provide quick service to the complainant by getting the amount realized early by utilizing “Core banking system”. However the said draft was returned by Corporation Bank, Chennai to them on 25.9.2010 with the remark “Not drawn on us”. When the said draft was sent to City Union Bank Tuticorin for collection on 28.9.2010 since 26.9.2010 being Sunday the amount was credited in the account of the complainant on 1.10.2010 within the stipulated period for collection of an out station instrument and the said draft was realized on 1.10.2010. As per the 1st opposite party banking policy the maximum time frame for collection of an out station cheque / draft is 14 days. In this case the draft has been realized within the period of 8 days therefore the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. Further the complainant had specifically admitted that he would abide by the policies of the bank. Therefore the realization of the said draft of value of Rs.10,000/- within 8 days does not amount to deficiency of service. The allegation that the bank staff forcibly returned the draft to the complainant is completely denied as false. The letter dated 10.11.2010 is a formal letter sent by the bank in response to an alleged rude behavior of the bank staff and is not an admission of any deficiency or mistake in the services provided by the bank. The 3rd opposite party, the Reserve Bank of India which regulates the banking procedure has categorically held that the opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service since draft had been cleared within the time frame of the bank’s policies. As such the opposite party have not committed deficiency in service and complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed in limini.
4. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 2nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the 2nd opposite party was set exparte.
5. Written Version of 3rd opposite party is briefly as follows:
The 3rd opposite party deny all the averments made therein except those that are specifically admitted hereunder and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The complainant had approached the Banking Ombudsman (BO) Chennai for a compensation of Rs.4,000/- towards mental agony suffered for the delay in crediting the proceeds to his account. The complaint was registerd under No.20101106005111, dated 3.2.2011. After examining the relevant documents submitted by the bank, it was observed by the BO that the opposite party-1 bank had collected and credited the proceeds of the cheque within the stipulated time frame. As such no delay was observed in the case. As the allegation of staff mis-behavior does not fall under the purview of Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006, the complaint was closed by the BO under 13 (a) of BOS and advised Shri Murugan vide letter dated 18.2.2011. Not satisfied with the decision of the BO, Shri Murugan preferred an Appeal before the 3rd opposite party vide his appeal dated 12.3.2011. Opposite party-3 rejected the appeal of the complainant as the appeal was not maintainable as per the provisions of the BO Scheme 2006 and conveyed the same to the complainant. Shri Murugan approached the opposite party-3 again vide his letters dated 9.2.2012 and 19.3.2012 since the opposite party -3 had already replied to him no reply was sent to Shri Murugan since no new facts brought out by him and a decision had already been taken on the appeal issue and conveyed to him vide earlier letter dated 1.7.2011. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint and nature of the deficiency of service alleged by the complainant against the opposite party clearly reveals that as far as this opposite party is concerned the complaint is without basis as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine in terms of the provisions of sec.26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite party with cost.
6. Further submitted that the opposite party-3 has not rendered any service to the complainant as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and as such the question of deficiency of service by opposite party-3 does not arise. Therefore the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of the opposite party-3 as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as such the complainant is not entitled to seek any relief from this forum as against the opposite party. It is submitted that the Hon’ble National Consumer Redressal Commission in its Judgment in the case of Virendra Prasad ..Vs.. Reserve Bank of India reported in I (1991) CPR 661 has observed as under :
On the other hand the First respondent – Reserve Bank of India was merely exercising its statutory function as the statutory authority charged with the task of enforcing the provisions relating to foreign exchange control contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. While acting in the said capacity, the Reserve Bank of India cannot be said to be rendering any banking service to the complainant nor was there any element of hiring of “service” which is the sine qua non for attracting the definition of the expression “consumer” contained in section 2 (i) (d)\(l) of the Act.
It is submitted that Banking Ombudsman and the 3rd opposite party performs statutory functions under BOS 2006 and therefore this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint against replying opposite party as no service has ever been rendered by the replying opposite party to the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of 1st and 3rd Opposite parties are filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
8. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
9. POINTS 1 & 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the 1st and 3rd opposite parties, proof affidavits filed by both parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 filed on the side of complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 were filed on the side of 1st and 3rd opposite parties and considered both sides arguments.
10. The allegations by the complainant against the 1st opposite party is that when he presented a City Union Bank draft dated 21.9.2010 to the value of Rs.10,000/- with the 1st opposite party on 23.9.2010 to be realized at City Union Bank, Tuticorin the 1st opposite party instead of sending the draft to the Tuticorin branch had wrongly sent to the Corporation Bank, Chennai and the Corporation bank had returned the draft on 24.9.2010 to the 1st opposite party with the remarks “Not drawn on us”. The 1st opposite party received the draft and kept with them and there was no communication till 28.9.2010 and after he approached the 1st opposite party they informed that the said draft was returned by the Corporation Bank, Chennai and the 1st opposite party forcibly returned the said draft to the complainant and hence he represented the draft on the same day and requested the bank official to send it to City Union Bank, Tuticorin Branch.
11. With regard to the said allegation the 1st opposite party had replied in his written version that the purpose of sending the draft for collection to Chennai branch is to provide quick service to the complainant by getting the amount realized early by utilizing “Core Banking System”. However the said draft was returned by Corporation Bank, Chennai to them on 25.9.2010 with the remark “Not drawn on us”. When the said draft was sent to City Union Bank Tuticorin for collection on 28.9.2010 since 26.9.2010 being Sunday the amount was credited in the account of the complainant on 1.10.2010 within the stipulated period for collection of an out station instrument and the said draft was realized on 1.10.2010. As per the 1st opposite party banking policy the maximum time frame for collection of an out station cheque / draft is 14 days. In this case the draft has been realized within the period of 8 days therefore the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. Therefore the realization of the said draft of value of Rs.10,000/- within 8 days does not amount to deficiency of service. The allegation that the bank staff forcibly returned the draft to the complainant is completely denied as false. The letter dated 10.11.2010 is a formal letter sent by the bank in response to an alleged rude behavior of the bank staff and is not an admission of any deficiency or mistake in the services provided by the bank. The 3rd opposite party the Reserve Bank of India which regulates the banking procedure has categorically held that the opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service since draft had been cleared within the time frame of the bank’s policies.
12. Though the 1st opposite party had sent the demand draft to the Corporation Bank, Chennai instead of City Union Bank of Tuticorin it reveals that the 1st opposite party had sent the said draft to the Corporation Bank, Chennai to provide with service to the complainant by getting the amount realized early by utilizing the “Core banking system”. Though the said draft ought to be sent to the Tuticorin branch as contended by the complainant the act done by the 1st opposite party is not done with any intention to cause delay but it seems that it had been sent to Corporation Bank, Chennai to utilize the Core Banking System. Moreover as contended by the 1st opposite party as per the banking policy i.e Ex.B1 the time frame of collection of an out station instrument is 14-days. In the present case, the date of presentation of the draft is 23.9.2010 and the date of realization is 1.10.2010 therefore there is only 8-days delay which is within the time limit of the bank policy. Moreover the 1st opposite party also contended that the terms and conditions of the bank policy have been admitted by the complainant. From the above facts it is clear that the delay caused is only a normal delay and there is no exorbitant delay and due to the said delay the complainant could not have suffered as much hardship as alleged in his complaint. Hence we consider that there is no in deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party in the delay caused for realization of the complaint mentioned draft. Whereas the contention of the 1st opposite party that, the complaint is barred by limitation is not acceptable, since it is filed within the limitation period.
13. As discussed above the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties that they had caused delay in entertaining the complaint mentioned Demand draft is not acceptable, since the delay caused is not exorbitant delay and it is within the maximum time frame for collection of an outstation cheque / draft i.e. 14-days as per the policy Ex.B1. Hence the compensation claimed by the complainant for deficiency in service with regard to delay is not sustainable. Moreover the complainant has not incurred any monetary loss towards such delay.
14. With regard to the allegation attributed against the 1st opposite party that they had forcibly returned the draft to the complainant on 28.9.2010 and compelled to redeposit on 28.9.2010, Ex.A1 reveals that the complainant had himself written separate challan on 28.9.2010 for 2nd time. The facts of the case itself proves that the 1st opposite party had sent the complaint mentioned demand draft to the Corporation bank Chennai instead of sending directly to the Tuticorin Branch. Therefore the 1st opposite party is duty bound to return the said demand draft to the Tuticorin branch when they have received same from the Corporation Bank, Chennai. But the contention of the 1st opposite party that the complainant himself voluntarily wrote a separate challan 28.9.2010 is not acceptable. Furthermore the complainant had also stated in his written arguments that the 1st opposite party had debited a sum of Rs.100/- towards charges for the retuned demand draft. The said allegation is also revealed as per Ex.A1. Whereas he had not raised the said allegation in this complaint due to ignorance of law as submitted by the complainant is acceptable. As such they had committed deficiency in service to that extent and caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore the 1st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant to the extent of such deficiency in service on their part.
15. Whereas the grievance of the complainant that the 2nd opposite party agreed the mistake done by the 1st opposite party but failed to pay compensation is not sustainable. On perusal of Ex.A3 it is reveals that it is only a formal reply letter to the complainant and it is not admission of deficiency in service. Though the 2nd opposite party remained exparte, the complaint is not maintainable against the 2nd opposite party as discussed above.
16. Further as stated by the 3rd opposite party in their written version as well as in their proof affidavit the 3rd opposite party only replied to the appeal made by the complainant against the reply of the Banking Ombudsman which is also evidenced through the exhibit filed by the opposite parties and they are only merely exercising its statutory function as the statutory authority and it cannot said to be rendering any banking service to the complainant and as such the complaint against the 3rd opposite party also is not sustainable. As discussed above the relief of compensation claimed against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties is also not sustainable since they have not offered any service to the complainant as the complainant is entertained at free of cost by them as stated in their proof affidavit.
17. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled only to a just and reasonable compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party alone as discussed above. As such the 1st opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant. Accordingly the complaint against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and as such the points 1 & 2 are answered.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order passed to till the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties is dismissed.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29th day of March 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 28.9.2010 - Copy of Bank remittance challan and bank’s response.
Ex.A2- 24.9.2010 - Coy of Corporation Bank’s return of cheque.
Ex.A3- 10.11.2009 - Copy of CUB Central Office Reply.
Ex.A4- 17.2.2011 - Copy of Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Dept. Reply.
Ex.A5- 12.5.2011 - Copy of Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Dept. Reply.
Ex.A6- 9.2.2012 - Copy of complainant’s rep. to Reserve Bank of India.
Ex.A7- 27.3.2012 - Copy of Core Centre reply.
Ex.A8- 6.6.2012 - Copy of complainant’s rep. to the opposite parties.
Ex.A9- 13.6.2012 - Copy of Cub Central office reply.
Ex.A10- 31.7.2012 - Copy of Banking Ombudsman Ack.
Ex.A11- - - Copy of RBI press release.
Opposite parties’ side documents.
Ex.B1- - - Copy of application form.
Ex.B2- - - Copy of policy of the opposite parties 1 & 2 on collection of
Cheque.
Ex.B3- 8.3.2011 - Copy of letter from the opposite parties 1 & 2 to
the complainant.
Ex.B4- 2.5.2011 - Copy of letter from the opposite parties 1 & 2 to the
Commissioner Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Dept.
Ex.B5- 4.5.2011 - Copy of letter from the opposite parties 1 & 2 to the
complainant.
Ex.B6- 13.6.2012 - Copy of letter from the opposite parties 1 & 2 to
the complainant.
Ex.B7- 3.2.2011 - Copy of the complaint registered under complaint.
Ex.B8- 12.10.2010 - Copy of City Union Bank’s letter addressed to the
complainant.
Ex.B9- 10.11.2010 - Copy of City Union Bank’s letter addressed to the
Complainant.
Ex.B10- 8.4.2011 - Copy of City Union Bank’s letter addressed to the
Complainant.
Ex.B11- 18.2.2011 - Copy of the office of banking Ombudman addressed to the
Complainant.
Ex.B12- 12.3.2011 - Copy of complainant’s letter addressed to the Appellate
Authority.
Ex.B13- 1.7.2011 - Copy of the customer Service department RBI, Central
Office addressed to the complainant.
Ex.B14- - - Copy of the banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
