<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 27.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 09th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1886/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.R.Umesh,Aged about 28 years,S/o L.K.Ramesh,Resident of No.51/a,2nd Cross, Chinnappa Layout,Kalkere Main Road,Bangalore – 560 016.Advocate – Sri.H.R.ManjunathaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1) The Manager,I.C.I.C.I Bank,Commissionerate Road,Mayo Hall,Bangalore.Advocate – Sri.Mahabaleshwar G.L2) The Manager,CITI Bank,M.G.Road,Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other relief’s 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 /> <br /> Complainant availed credit card facility from OP. He was regular in making payment of the amount in due. Towards the payment under the credit card for the month of May 2008, he has issued a cheque drawn in favour of I.C.I.C.I Bank – OP.1 for Rs.6,000/- dated 03.06.2008, it is collected by OP.1 agent. Complainant thought that it will be presented on 03.06.2008 and there will no balance. But when he received the statement of Citi Bank that is OP.2 he came to know for the period from 01.05.2008 to 05.06.2008 the said amount was not taken into credit. On the other hand it is mentioned that the said cheque was presented on 30.05.2008 and it was dishonored. Immediately complainant contacted the OP.2 about the irregularities committed. There was no response. For no fault of his, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though OP have committed mistake on their part in mishandling the cheque by way of wrong presentation but still they took harsh step in entering the name of the complainant in Credit Information Bureau of India Limited, which has affected his status in the society. He intended to take some financial assistance from Citi Finance, as his name is entered in C.I.B.I.L none of the Bank came forwarded to extend their helping hand. It is all because of carelessness, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. He is holding not one credit card but two credit cards. His payment with regard to the dues is irregular and he is a defaulter. A cheque which complainant has presented was dated 28.05.2008 hence it was presented on 30.05.2008. It was dishonored with the shara “insufficient funds”. No fault lies with the OP. OP is agreeable to reverse the other charges levied with regard to the dishonor of the said cheque if sufficient details are given. Without affording the said opportunity complainant has made this false complaint. As the complainant is defaulter before dishonoring of the said cheque his name is already been included in the list of C.I.B.I.L. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 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 /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s 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 Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the credit card holder of OP.1. In order to pay the amount in due with regard to the said credit card for the month of May 2008 he has issued a cheque of OP.1 Bank for Rs.6,000/- dated 03.06.2008. Complainant thought that it will be realized in time but to his utter shock and surprise when he received the statement of OP.2 for the period 01st May 2008 to 05th June 2008 that amount was reflected. On the other hand it is mentioned that the cheque dated 03.06.2008 was dishonored.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 7. When complainant verified the documents he was shock to know that OP.1 instead of presenting the said cheque on 03.06.2008 presented it on 30.05.2008. Due to the mishandling, carelessness and negligence in wrong presentation of the said cheque on a wrong date it came to be dishonored. With all that OP has included his name in C.I.B.I.L. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the complainant did have two credit cards not one. Of course this fact is not disputed by the complainant, but still he failed to mention the same in his complaint. So there is a suppression of material facts. Further it is contended by the OP that the cheque issued by the complainant was dated 28.05.2008 not 03.06.2008. Hence it was presented on 30.05.2008. For want of sufficient funds it was dishonored. So no fault lies with the OP. OP has got a right to proceed against complainant with regard to the dishonoring of the said cheque and he having become a defaulter in not making payment of the amount in due. If OP initiates any legal action that act of the OP does not amounts to deficiency in service. We find force in the defence of the OP.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 9. On perusal of the documents produced it appears the complainant become the defaulter in not making payment of the amount in due. Before dishonoring of the alleged cheque his name has already been entered in C.I.B.I.L. So entering of his name in C.I.B.I.L is not on offshoot of dishonoring of the said cheque. Though complainant has stated that he has issued it on 03.06.2008 whereas the Xerox copy now produced before Fora shows that it is dated 28.05.2008 and OP presented the said cheque on 30.05.2008 it bounced with a reason of “Insufficient” funds.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Of course complainant has made a serious allegations that the said cheque is forged, date is manipulated, his signature is also forged. If complainant is sure of the said illegal act of the OP nothing prevented him to move criminal law into motion. He would have taken the matter seriously and would have filed criminal complaint to the jurisdictional police. But no such steps are taken.<br /> <br /> <br /> 11. So prima-facie the documents produced by the complainant himself shows that the said cheque is dated 28.05.2008 and it bounced on 30.05.2008. So there is no proof that complainant has issued any cheque dated 03.06.2008. Under such circumstances complainant can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP. The remedy is still open to the complainant to redress his grievance by filing criminal complaint against OP if he is sure that OP has forged, altered and manipulated his cheque. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant we don’t think that the present complaint is maintainable. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<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 09th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />