Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant is an account holder of 1^st opposite party bank and 2^nd opposite party is the Branch Manager of 1^st opposite party’s branch at Chengannoor.  It is contented that on 15/04/2015 the complainant had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.3,00.000/- to one Jayakumar and subsequently on 16/04/2015 he issued a stop memo against the said cheque to his bank.  It is stated that on 15/07/2015 the drawee the said Jayakumar presented the cheque for encashment through his bank Canara Bank, Buthanoor Branch.  It is stated that the opposite party’s bank return the above said chaque with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ to the drawee. It is further contended that as a result of the dishonor of cheque by an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ the said Jayakumar issued a lawyer’s notice to the complaint and subsequently filed a criminal complaint against  him U/S 138 of Indian Negotiable Instrument as ST 354/2015 before J.F.M.C Chengannoor.  According to the complaint as per the regulation and guideline of the Reserve Bank of India the presentation of the cheque for encashment was within the stale period ie., 3 months from the date of draw.  It is further contented that the dishonor of cheque by an endorsement ‘funds sufficient’ has a clear latches and negligence on the part of the opposite party and it is amounts to deficiency in service.  It is also pleaded that when there is a specific stop payment instruction the opposite party bank has no right to dishonor the cheque as stated.  The act of the opposite parties are caused mental and physical strain to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to him.  Hence the complainant, to realize an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite parties as compensation, cost etc.etc.

                  3.  This Forum entertained the complainant and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance.  1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed a joint version as follows.  According to the opposite parties the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contented that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties and he does not come under section 2(D) of the act.  It is admitted that the said cheque was issued to the complainant through 1^st opposite party’s Bank.  It is also admitted that ‘stop payment’ advice with respect to the above said cheque was issued to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant.  It is contented that when a cheque is presented for encashment the preliminary verification is regarding the cheque, the signature, account balance etc., etc. and then only the bank consider other facts like stop payment etc.  It is admitted that the RBI issued a circular with effect from 01/04/2012 reducing the validity period of the cheque to 3months from 6 months.  The opposite parties did not commit any laches or negligence as per the circular issue by RBI. The acts of dishonoring of the cheque by the opposite parties are proper and valid act of them.  They are not answerable to the complainant with regard to the criminal case under section 138 of NI Act.  These opposite parties are not liable for any relief claimed by the complainant or else the opposite parties are entitled to realize the entire cost of such proceedings from the complainant.  Therefore these opposite parties are prayed to dismiss the case with cost to them.

            4.  On the basis of the complaint, version and records before us, we framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

                               5.  In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Through him Ext. A1 to Ext. A8 were also marked. Ext. A1 is the photocopy of cheque dated 15/04/2015. Ext. A2 is the dishonor memo from ICICI Bank dated.15/07/2015.  Ext. A3 is the stop payment advice to the said cheque in A/c No. 203901500567.  Ext. A4 (subject proof) is the intimation letter dated nil (Canara Bank).  Ext A5 is the copy of the legal notice dated 04/08/2015.  Ext. A6 & Ext.A7 are the copy of the summons in S.T 354/2015 on the file of J.F.M.C, Chengannoor.  Ext. A8 is the copy of the circular dated 04/11/2011 of the R.B.I.  On the other side DW1 and DW2 were also examined.  After the closure of the evidence we heard both sides.

              6.  Point No.1:- The specific case of the opposite parties is that the case is not maintainable before this Forum since the complaint is not a consumer as per the C.P.Act:1986.  When we evaluate the evidences of this case it is to see that the complainant is an account holder of opposite parties Bank and he who maintained a valid account in that bank at the time of dishonoring the cheque.  It is also come to the evidence to see that the Ext.A1 cheque was presented to opposite party’s Bank through Canara Bank Budhnoor Branch and the complainant is the drawer of the cheque.  It is also admitted that the opposite party’s Bank issued a stop memo (A2) to the drawee of the cheque since it is dishonored by the opposite parties Bank.  The above evidence is sufficient and more to decide that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are the services providers of the complainant.   Therefore Point No.1 found in favor of the complainant. 

7. Point No 2 & 3:  For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point no 2 & 3 together.  The complainant PW1 deposed that he is maintaining a valid account with opposite parties Bank’s Branch at Kozhenchery Vide account No. 203901500567 and also deposed that he has drown a cheque  infavour of one Jayakumar for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs dated 15/04/2015 bearing cheque No. 002686.  In order to prove this aspect PW1 produced and marked the copy of cheque as Ext. A1.  It is also deposed that subsequently ie., on 16/04/2015 PW1 issued a ‘stop payment advice’ to the opposite parties Bank with regard to Ext. A1 cheque.  The issuance of the ‘stop memo’ against Ext. A1 cheque is proved by Ext.A2.  The specific case of the complaint PW1 in this case is that though he issued a ‘stop memo’ against Ext A1 cheque the opposite party Bank dishonored the Ext. A1 cheque with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’.  It is further deposed that the result of the dishonor of the cheque, caused to the filing of a criminal complaint against PW1 by the said Jayakumar u/s 138 of Indian Negotiable Instrument Act.  The complainant PW1 proved the ‘fund insufficient’ Bank memo with regard to the dishonor of cheque (intimation to Canara Bank Branch Budhanoor) by Ext A2.  The Ext.A3 is a letter issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant which reveals that the complaint has given a stop payment instruction to 1^st opposite party’s bank on 16-04-2015 as deposed by the complainant and also to be under stood that the account balance at the time of accepting the stop payment was Rs.3,00,000/-.  It is interesting to see that the Ext. A2 ‘fund insufficient’ memo issued on 16-07-2015.  It is a clear latches on the part of 1^st opposite party.  The Ext. A4 is a letter issued by the drawers bank i.e., Canara Bank to the said Jayakumar dated 20-07-2015 stating the reason ‘returned for want of fund’.  The Ext. A5 is the legal notice issued to the complainant by the drawer Jayakumr prayer to the filing of the above said criminal complaint against him.  Ext. A6 proves that the drawee of the cheque he who filed a criminal complaint u/s.138 of Indian Negotiable Act against this complainant before the JFMC Chengannoor as ST 85/2016.  Ext. A7 is the summons issued against the complainant as an accused in S.T.85/16.  When we evaluate the evidence on record as discussed above we can attribute the negligence and latches on the part of 1^st opposite party.  It amounts to deficiency in service of 1^st opposite party.  It is true that the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that Ext. A1 cheque was a stale cheque even on the date of presentation and it was the duty of the Canara Bank Budhannoor branch to reject the stale cheque stating the said reason.    It is admitted that the drawee presented this cheque for encashment through his Bank Canara Bank Branch Budhanoor on 15-07-2015 as per EXT A2.  It is also come out in evidence to show that when presenting Ext. A1 cheque for collection to opposite parties Bank the said cheque was a stale cheque as per the deposition of opposite parties witness DW1 and DW2.  No doubt, if the cheque was a stale one it is the duty of the 1^st opposite party bank to reject that Ext. A1 cheque on reason – ‘stale chaque’ or ‘out dated’.  More over as per Ext. A3 it is proved that the 1^st opposite party accepted the ‘stop payment’ advice on 16/04/2015 at 9.30am.   The intimation of 1^st opposite party Bank (Ext.A3) proved the knowledge of 1^st opposite party Bank with regard to the ‘stop memo’, apart from the knowledge of number of cheque, date of draw, amount,drawees name etc.  EXT A4 is an intimation to the said Jayakumar with regard to the reason for dishonor of EXT A1 cheque.  EXT.A4 stated that ‘your cheque No.002686/15.0415’ presented to ICICI Bank return for ‘wants of funds’ ‘memo is enclosed her with’.   When we evaluate the evidence of A4 it is clear that the collecting Bank ie., Canara Bank Budhanoor Branch intimated to the said Jayakumar to the effect that EXT.A1 cheque was dishonored due to the reason ‘funds insufficient’.  EXT.A6 & A7 are sufficient evidence to show that the said Jayakumar he who filed a criminal complaint against this complainant due to the dishonor of the cheque as ‘funds insufficient’.  EXT. A8 is a circular issued by RBI with regard to the reduction of the validity period of a cheque from 6 months to 3 months with effect from1st April 2012 onwards.  Though the opposite party examined DW1 & DW2 no documents were marked on their side.   When PW1 was cross examined by the opposite party nothing brought out to discard the contents of the complaint.  It is true that the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party put so many questions with regard to the criminal complaint and allied matters nothing brought out to disbelieve PW1.  When we go through the deposition of DW1 in cross examination we can see that opposite party Bank has a clear knowledge about the EXT.A1 cheque. “EXT A1 cheque ഒരു stale instrument ആയിരുന്നോ (A) ടി cheque ഞങ്ങളുടെ bank ൽ വന്നിട്ടില്ല. (Q) affidavit ൽ Para 3 ൽ പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്ന കാര്യങ്ങൾ ശരിയാണോ (stale cheque കണ്ടു എന്നത്) (A) ശരിയാണ്.  Core - banking system അനുസരിച്ച് A/c details എന്ത് branch ൽ നിന്ന് വേണമെങ്കിലും check ചെയ്യാൾ കഴിയും എന്നത് കാലഹരണപ്പെട്ടത് എന്നാണ് ഉദ്ദേശിക്കുന്നത്.  അപ്രകാരം ഒരു stale instrument collection ന് വന്ന് കഴിഞ്ഞാൽ invalid document (out of dated) എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാണ് dishonor ചെയ്യുന്നത് (Q) EXT A2 document, return ചെയ്തത് ‘funds insufficient’ എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞല്ലെ (A) അതെ”.   In the light of the above testimony of DW1 it is pertinent to see that if a stale instrument was received for collection, the Bank shall dishonor that document by stating ‘invalid document’ (out of dated).  Again he answered in cross “loan കൃത്യമായി അടക്കാത്തവരുടെയും cheque dishonor ആകുന്നവരുടെയും score 1 CIBL score (credit Investigation Bureau Ltd.) ആകാറുണ്ട്.  EXT.A1 cheque ഉം ആയി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട രേഖകൾ OP2 branch ൽ ആണ് സൂക്ഷിക്കുന്നത്. (Q) പരാതിക്കാരൻ നിങ്ങളുടെ branch ലെ A/c holder അല്ലെ. (A) അതെ”.  EXT.A1 cheque ന് ‘stop payment’ പരാധിക്കാരൻ തന്നിരുന്നു”. The above testimony also attributed that if a cheque of a person is dishonored the score of such person would have reduced in the records of Credit Investigation Bureau Ltd. When we go through the deposition of DW2 in cross it is also reveals that the above said Ext..A1 cheque was a ‘stale cheque’ at the time of collection. In cross DW2 answered   “Ext..A1 ഒരു stale cheque ആണ് എങ്കിൽ എങ്ങനെയാണ് dishonour ചെയ്തുകൊടുത്തത് (A) out of date എന്നാണ് രേഖപ്പെടുത്തുന്നത്.  In another question he answered, ‘stale cheque’ ന് ‘insufficient fund’ എന്ന കാരാണം പറഞ്ഞ് dishonour ചെയ്തതുകൊണ്ടല്ലോ പരാധിക്കാരൻ കേസിൽ പ്രതിയായി വിചാരണ നേരിടേണ്ടി വന്നത്. (A) അറിയില്ല.” On the basis of the deposition of DW1 & DW2 in cross as discussed above it is clearly come out in evidence to see that the 1^st opposite party’s Bank dishonoured the cheque on ground ‘Funds Insufficient’ knowing that the said cheque was a stale cheque at the time of endorsing ‘Funds Insufficient’. It is deposed that 1^st opposite party has to be endorsed it as ‘out dated’.  The evidence discussed above are so sufficient to find that 1^st opposite party committed deficiency in services by endorsing ‘Funds Insufficient’  instead of endorsing ‘out dated’ or even ‘payment stopped by drawer’ in the dishonour memo.  On the basis of the evidence discussed above we found that the complainant has proved this case with cogent and conclusive evidence.  It is also to be noted that 1^st opposite party is the branch Manager of ICICI Bank at Kozhencherry  Branch and the 2^nd opposite party is the manager of the same Bank’s Branch at Chengannoor.  The complainant has not adduced any evidence against 2^nd opposite party with regard to the deficiency in service as alleged.  Therefore 2^nd opposite party has to be exonerated from all charges.  It is also proved that due to the laches, negligence and deficiency in services on the part of 1^st opposite party which caused mental agony and defamation to complainant PW1.  Therefore the complainant is eligible for a reasonable compensation in this case.  Point No.2 & 3 found accordingly.

In the result we pass the following orders:- 

1. The 1^st opposite party is here by directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the receipt of this order onwards. 
2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand only)  to the complainant with 10% interest from the receipt of this order onwards.    

                  Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st  day of October, 2017.

                                                                                           (Sd/-)

P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)           :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1      :  Nidhin.C.Abraham

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

 A1        :  Photocopy of cheque dated 15/04/2015.

 A2       :  Dishonor memo from ICICI Bank dated.15/07/2015.

 A3        :  Stop payment advice for account 203901500567.

 A4        :  Subject proof, intimation letter dated nil (Canara Bank).

 A5       :  Legal notice dated 04/08/2015.

 A6 &A7 :  Copy of the summons in S.T 354/2015 on the file of J.F.M.C,

 A8        :  Copy of the circular dated 04/11/2011 of the R.B.I. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Boney Joseph

DW2  :  Libson Jacob Thomas

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil

                                                                                                     (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Nidhin C Abraham,

                    Chirappurathu House,

                    Thonipuzha.P.O,

                    Thottapuzhaserry Village

                    Kozencherry Taluk,

                    Pathanamthitta District.       

2. I.C.I.C.I Bank Ltd,

                          Represented By,

                          Branch Manager,

                          I.C.I.C.I Bank Kozencherry BR.,

                          Kozhencherry P.O,

                          Pathanamthitta.

3. The Manager,

                          I.C.I.C.I Bank Ltd,

                     Chengannoor BR, Chengannoor P.O.

                     Alapuzha District.

4. The Stock File.