ORDER
V. K. DABAS, MEMBER
 Parties being common , the two complaints are being disposed of by
means of this common order.  The complainant in both the complaints is
maintaining a savings fund account with the OP bank.  In complaint no.
319/2012, it has been alleged by the complainant that on 13.2.2012 ,
he had deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with the OP.  In May 2012, when
he checked up with the OP, he had found that the credit of Rs.
30,000/- had not been given in his account.   The complainant took up
the matter with the OP but to no result.  He had served a legal notice
dated 25.7.2012 upon the OP but did not get any favourable response
which led him to file the present complaint.
In complaint number 320/2012 , the complainant has alleged that he had
issued a cheque bearing number 048767 dated 13.6.2012 drawn on the
respondent bank for  a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of M/s S. S.
Construction Company. The said cheque on presentation to the bank for
collection was returned dishonoured on account of insufficient funds.
This despite the fact that the complainant was having sufficient funds
in his account.  He had taken up the matter with the OP who had
admitted its fault vide letter dated 18.6.2012.   The complainant has
alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and has approached
this forum for redressal of his grievances.
Both the complaints have been contested by the OP.  In complaint
number 319/2012, the OP has claimed that no deposit for a sumof Rs
30,000/- was made by the complainant on 13.2.2007. It was , therefore,
claimed that the complainant has no cause of action to file  the
present complaint.  It has claimed that the complaint is liable to be
dismissed. It has prayed accordingly.
In complaint number 320/2012, the OP has denied any deficiency in
service on its part and has claimed that the complaint is false,
frivolous and is  devoid of any merits.  Its defence is contained in
Para 2 of the reply on merits and is reproduced as under:
2. In regard to para 2, it is submitted that the arguments in the said
para are misleading. The complainant has suppressed several material
facts. The true facts are that the complainant had deposited following
two cheques in clearing on 14.06.20 12 evening in ATM drop box:
1.Cheque no. 663086 for Rs 2,50,000/-
2.Cheque no. 992601 for Rs 1,00,000/-
It is further submitted that as per the normal procedure of the bank,
the clearing cheques deposited in ATM drop box are taken out from the
box next day morningand are presented for clearing. The funds will be
credited to the account on the next working day evening. The exception
to the case is for the cheques presented on Fridays, next day i.e.,
Saturday being half day, there will be no credit of clearing cheques
in the afternoon and the clear balance will be available on Monday
morning only. Similarly, for a cheque sent to clearing on Saturday
morning, the customer will get credit on Monday evening i.e., next
working day.
In this instant case, the cheques deposited on 14.06.2012 (Thursday)
evening were sent
clearing from the branch (Karol Bagh) on 15.06.2012 (Friday) and
16.06.2013 being a Saturday, the funds would have been cleared on
18.06.201 2(Monday) morning. The clearing presentation of the above
mentioned cheques were delayed due to network failure in clearing
branch On 15.06.2012 and so the clearing cheques werepresented to
clearing only on 16.06.2012 (Saturday) and the credit of the cheques
were released only on 18.06.2012 (Monday) evening. Meanwhile, the
complainant without confirming the clear balance which could be
withdrawn/available in the account issued a cheque no 1004876 dated
13.06.2012 for Rs 2,50,000/- in anticipation of credit of these
clearing cheques. It is submitted that as per
N. I. Act, section 31, bank is obliged to honour the cheque issued by
a customer and for that the customer has to maintain clear balance in
his account before issuance of cheque from his account. In this case
customer had issued cheque on 13.06.2012 before depositing the
clearing cheques in his account.
It is further submitted that the delay,if any, was on account of
‘Force Majeure’ as the bank’s
network system was out of order/down and the whole clearing work on
15-06-2012 was delayed. The cheque Collection Policy of the opposite
party bank. which is widely circulated and is available
on net, as per “Force Majeure” clearly stipulates that in the absence
of usual means of communication beyond the control of the bank
prevents it from performing its obligations within the specified
service delivery parameters, the bank shall not be liable to
compensate customers for delayed credits. A copy of the “ Policy on
Collection of Cheques/Instruments” is annexed as “Annexure -Ri”
It is admitted that the complainant issued a cheque bearing no.
10048767 for Rs. 2,50,000/-. However, as explained above, when the
said cheque was presented at 11.00 a.m. on 18.06.20 12 the account was
not having sufficient clear/ withdrawable balance and hence it was
returned with the remark “INSUFFICIENT FUND”. It is submitted that the
said cheque could not be cleared because clear balance was not
available iii the account as there was a technical problem in the
computer system on 15.06.2012 and thereby there was one day delay in
clearing process. It is submitted that because of the technical
glitch/ problem in the computer system on that day cheques of other
customers were also held up. This was on account of ‘Force Majeure’ as
the circumstances which were beyond the control of the bank. Thus in
the facts and circumstances no deficiency in service could be
attributed to the bank.

The OP has claimed that the complaint is without merits and is liable
to be dismissed. It has prayed accordingly.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
Before filing the present complaint , the complainant had served a
legal notice dated 25.7.2012 upon the OP. The complainant has placed
on record the original  counter foil of the pay in slip dated
13.2.2012 which shows that he had actually deposited a sum of Rs.
30,000/- in his account.  The counter foil of the pay in slip contains
the stamp of the bank and signatures of the cashier in token of the
receipt of the amount.  The OP bank has simply denied the receipt of
Rs 30,000/- and has given no explanation whatsoever as regarding  the
original counterfoil dated 13.2.2011 placed on record by the
complainant.  The OP bank has not denied the signatures of the cashier
or the impression of the bank’s stamp on the original counterfoil.  In
the absence of such an explanation from the OP bank , there is no
occasion for holding that no deposit was made by the complainant with
the OP bank on 13.2.2012.  We, therefore, hold that the failure of the
OP bank in giving credit of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant
on account of the deposit made by him on 13.2.2012 is an act of
deficiency on the part of the OP bank.  Accordingly, we hold the OP
bank guilty of deficiency in serive and direct it as under:
In complaint No. 319/12
1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with interest at
the savings bank rate as applicable from time to time w.e.f. 13.2.2012
till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for
pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

In complaint No. 320/12
In the present case, the OP bank has admitted that two cheques for Rs.
2,50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively were  deposited  by the
complainant with it on 14.6.2012 in the evening for collection.
14.6.2012 was a Thursday and the cheques were to be sent for clearing
on the next day i.e. 15.6.2012.  The bank has admitted that there was
a delay in the clearance of the cheques  due to network failure on
15.6.2012 as a result of which the credit of the cheques was released
on 18.6.2012  in the evening only.  The learned counsel for the OP
bank  has claimed that there was  no discrepancy on the part of the OP
bank as  the delay had been caused on account of force-Majeure . We
have gone through the said clause  a copy of which has been made
available on the record of this case.   We are of the considered
opinion that the case of the OP bank(i.e. network failure  is not
covered under this clause.   There is nothing on record to show that
there was an actual network failure in the concerned branch. No
certificate to that effect has been filed  on record on behalf of the
OP bank. But assuming for the sake of argument that there was a
network failure , the fact was within the knowledge of the OP bank and
it should have taken immediate remedied  on measures so that due
credit is given to the customer in time.  Apart from this it was the
duty of the OP bank to have informed the complainant with regard to
the delay which had occasioned due to a fault in its own system.
Since, the bank has been found lacking in this regard, we hold that
the OP bank was deficient in rendering service to the complainant. We,
therefore, direct the OP bank in complaint no. 320/12 as under:-

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for
pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation.
The Original order shall be kept in 319/2012 and its copy shall be
kept in case no. 320/2012.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date
of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on
the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply
with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution
of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
    File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................