Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/28/2007

Deepak Goswami - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.R.Venkatraman

16 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 29.12.2006

                                                                          Date of Order : 16.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.28 /2007

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 16^TH DAY OF MAY 2018

                                 

Deepak Goswami,

S/o. Mr. Madhusudhan Goswami,

No.16, Ekambareswarar Koil Street,

First Floor, Park Town,

Chennai – 600 013.                                                .. Complainant.             

                                         

                                        ..Versus..

 

1. The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

No.84, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Sowcarpet,

Chennai – 600 079.

 

2.  The Branch Manager,

ABN AMRO BANK (India) N.V.,

No.19/1, Haddows Road,

Chennai – 600 006.                                             ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant            :  M/s. Venkataraman & another

Counsel for 1^st opposite party   :  M/s. V.V. Giridhar

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party  :  M/s. T. Suresh & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant.

 

1.     The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant had Savings Bank account No.603101504193 in the 1^st opposite party Sowcarpet Branch and the 2^nd opposite party ABN AMRO BANK Haddows Road Branch.  The complainant issued a cheque for Rs.20,000/- on 05.12.2006 from his ICICI Bank A/c and deposited in the drop box of the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party for due clearance sent the cheque to the 1^st opposite party on 06.12.2006.  The 1^st opposite party cleared only Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- on 06.12.2006 because the 2^nd opposite party issued MICR code etc only for Rs.2,000/-.   Further the complainant submits that on 11.12.2006, the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.12,500/- to the third party which was returned dishonoured thereby, the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice dated:15.12.2006 to the opposite parties and the opposite parties neither replied nor come forward to rectify their mistake.   Hence the complaint is filed.

  2.   The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 1^st opposite party states that, immediately after  deposit of the cheque, in the drop box of the 2^nd opposite party bank it was cleared only for Rs.2,000/- by using the MICR code.     Further the 1^st opposite party states that, immediately after the issuance of cheque dated:11.12.2006, the 1^st opposite party had debited  Rs.18,000/- in the a/c of the complainant in the 2^nd opposite party on 13.12.2006.    Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the 1^st opposite party.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable as against the 1^st opposite party.

3.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2^nd  opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant along with the cheque challan / deposit slip was filled only for Rs.2,000/- in figures and thereby, such mistake happened.  On the other hand, the complainant deposited a cheque for Rs.20,000/-.   On the other hand, the 2^nd opposite party vehemently denied that after the mistake was brought to the notice of ICICI bank / 1^st opposite party they had dropped the cheque in the drop box of the 2^nd opposite party at RBI on 14.12.2006.  Since on 15.12.2006, there was a bank strike and the cheque was cleared on 16.12.2006 and the amount was credited into the complainant’s account of the 2^nd opposite party.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

4.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.   Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.    

5.     The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and dereliction of duty  of the opposite parties with cost as prayed for?

 

6. :-

Both parties have not filed any written arguments.  Both parties have not turned up to advance any oral arguments also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written versions, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant had Savings Bank account in the 1^st opposite party Sowcarpet  Branch and the 2^nd opposite party ABN AMRO BANK Haddows Road Branch.  Admittedly the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.20,000/- on 05.12.2006 from his ICICI Bank A/c and deposited in the drop box of the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party for due clearance sent the cheque to the 1^st opposite party on 06.12.2006.   The 1^st opposite party cleared only Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- on 06.12.2006 because the 2^nd opposite party issued MICR code etc  only for Rs.2,000/-.   Further the complainant contended that on 11.12.2006, the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.12500/- to the third party which was returned dishonoured as per Ex.A2 thereby, the deficiency in service on the part of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties is proved.  But it is seen that the complainant without verifying the balance amount in the 2^nd opposite party ABN AMRO Bank Haddows Road branch issued cheque.   As per the RBI guidelines, “only after ascertaining the balance amount in the account alone, the cheque shall be issued”.  In this case, eventhough the opposite parties cleared only Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- the complainant without looking into the balance amount in the account issued a cheque.    

7.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that immediately after  deposit of the cheque, in the drop box of the 2^nd opposite party bank it was cleared only for Rs.2,000/- by using the MICR code.   The 2^nd opposite party’s contention is that the complainant along with the cheque challan / deposit slip was filled only  for Rs.2,000/- in figures and thereby, such mistake happened and both the opposite parties have not taken any step to produce the documents  to prove the deposit challan having the figure only Rs.2,000/-.   On the other hand, admittedly, the cheque issued is for Rs.20,000/-.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that, immediately after the issuance of cheque dated:11.12.2006, the 1^st opposite party had debited  Rs.18,000/- in the a/c of the complainant in the 2^nd opposite party on 13.12.2006.  But the 1^st opposite party has not produced any record.  On the other hand, the 2^nd opposite party vehemently denied that after the mistake was brought to the notice of ICICI bank / 1^st opposite party they had dropped the cheque in the drop box of the 2^nd opposite party at RBI on 14.12.2006.  Since on 15.12.2006, there was a bank strike and the cheque was cleared on 16.12.2006 and the amount was credited into the complainant’s account of the 2^nd opposite party.   To prove that also, the opposite party has not produced any record establishes the deficiency in service.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that, the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2  are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of Personal Banking Savings account of the complainant with the 1st opposite party cheque for Rs.20,000/-.
		Copy of cheque issued in favour of the third party Swapnil Davey bearing Cheque No.928884 drawn on the 2nd opposite party bank
		Copy of return Memo Insufficient funds by the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite parties

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

2^ND OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT