Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/298/2016

J.Yoganadan - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 17.08.2016

Date of Reservation      : 01.07.2022

Date of Order               : 20.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 298/2016

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^th  DAY OF JULY 2022

J.Yoganandan,

No.1A, Chakrapani Road, I Floor,

Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.                                                                                                                                       ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

1.The IDBI Bank Ltd,

   Represented by the Branch Manager,

   Hari Niwas Towers, 163,

   Thambu Chetty Street,

   Parrys,

   Chennai – 600 001.

 

2.The IDBI Bank Ltd,

   Rep. by the General Manager & Senior Regional Manager,

   Regional Office, 37,

   PM Towers, Greams Road,

   ThousandLights,

   Chennai – 600 006.                                                                                                                                         ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. A.V. Radhakrishnan

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

 

 

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, stress, tension, depression and pain sustained by the Complainant due to the wrong fully returning the cheque & failure to obtain signature on indemnity on 04.01.2016 and to pay Rs.40,000/- towards deficiency in service for failure to obtain signature on indemnity on 04.01.2016 and not advising the Complainant about the wrong return of cheque  and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant respectfully submits that on 27 March 2015 he opened an overdraft Account with IDBI Bank No.0907653700000426 by pledging shares for purchase of flat in Chennai as the Bank declined to grant Housing loan as he has crossed 65 years. As per Reserve Bank of India norms and rules the Complainant submitted the list of documents ( i ) Pan Card - AAAPY0213F duly attested under the signature with the name reading Jagannathan Yogananadan, S/o:Jagannathan. ( ii ) Driving Licence with No. TN09/DLR/0004062/2014 , Renewed on 02.04.2014, Date of Issue : 28.10.1976 with the name Yoganandan J , S/o : P.Jagannathan if expanded Yogananadan Jagannathan, with these proofs the Account has been opened with styled name J.Yoganandan, Account No. 907104000060668 , Customer ID : 71360929. The Complainant is using the said account satisfactorily without any complaint and instance of cheque return. On 16.12.2015 Complainant received a cheque of Rs.2,15,908/- with No.890420 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd favouring Yoganandan Jagannathan as a settlement awarded by the Hon'ble The Chennai South District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , against the CMP No.314/2105. As the arrest warrant issued was pending for 04.01.2016, accordingly the Complainant should report the status of the cheque on 07.01.2016 to Hon'ble forum towards cancelling the pending arrest warrant issued against the Chairman and the Branch Manager Max Life Insurance Co.Ltd in the E.P filed. Hence On 04.01.2016 the Complainant rushed to the IDBI Bank to deposit the cheque and requested the Clearing Section Executive Mr.Kuldip to check and compare the titles of the cheque and the account accordingly Bank Executive opened the Account in Complainant presence and compared the details and advised to deposit the cheque , even acknowledged with stamp reading as "O.V. Verified Signature" and appended Complainant signature also which is conclusive proof that verification of titles in the cheque and in account number are same and one person Yogananadan S/o Jagannathan. Moreover the Complainant explained the urgency and also the cheque clearance to be reported to the Hon'ble Consumer Forum as the arrest warrants against the Chairman and the Branch Manager have to be cancelled. The Clearing Section Executive assured the Complainant that he will take care and will contact if any problem with the cheque clearing happens. On 05.01.2016 Complainant visited the Bank at 12.15 p.m to collect some cheque deposit challans and out of curiosity enquired about the cheque deposit , to the Complainant's shock Mr.Kuldip awakened from the slumber and told that the cheque was returned with the reason "Title Differs".  The return of cheque is on 04.01.2016 itself and even till 12.15 p.m of 05.01.2016 no intimation from the bank till the Complainant enquiries with the Clearing Executive which was duly verified by him before depositing the same for clearance. The Complainant submits that the matter was brought to the knowledge of the Branch Manager and the Assistant Manager and they were not sympathetic to my grievance nor apologetic of their actions moreover the Complainant respectfully submits that Mr. Kuldip, after verifying the Account by opening my account with the title in the cheque should have obtained my signature on the above Indemnity on 04.01.2016 itself , but he did not feel that it was necessary and the Bank should own up the Deficiency in Service. The Complainant submits that due to the timely action taken by him, the cheque was once again deposited along with the Indemnity duly signed by him on 05.01.2016, the cheque was cleared and credited into his account on 06.01.2016 and he could report to the Hon'ble Forum on 07.01.2016 that the cheque was cleared and the arrest warrants were cancelled. Even the Complainant submits that many such instances with the Name title on the Cheque as Jagannatahan Yoganandan, Yogananadan.J, Yoganandan Jagannathan were all cleared through Cheque Clearance at Various Banks and Branches collected by the same IDBI Bank and credited into my Account. The Complainant submits that the wrong return of the cheque by both the parties have failed to appreciate the urgency and the necessity of the matter allowing me to suffer , stressful , depression , mental agony. Hence the Complaint.

 

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant did not produce any evidence to show that he incurred loss and damage. It is pertinent to note that throughout the entire nation, all the Cheque's are to be mandatorily of the specification CTS 2010 (Cheque Truncation System). When the said Cheque’s presented to a Bank branch either to the person manning a Counter, or in Collecting Box/Machine at the end of the day all the Cheque’s presented on the day with the help of a scanner the computer system captures the data encrypted in the MICR band in the CTS 2010 Cheque, this is done to ensure security, safety and non-repudiation of data/images, end to end public key infrastructure which has been the highlight of the CTS 2010 Cheques. Apart from it, the Computer System captures the images presented in the Cheques and both the data and images are immediately send through electronic form to the Central Processing Location, the Clearing House and on this process, an Ultra Violet Verified Seal is affixed at the back of the Cheque and this has been done only for the purpose of authenticity of Cheque and not for the verification of title and other details mentioned manually. On 04.01.2016 the Complainant deposited a Cheque bearing No.890420 dated 16.12.2015 drawn on Axis Bank, on this as per the procedures highlighted above, the Cheque was Scanned of the data encrypted in the MICR band and images, the 1^st Opposite Party Bank affixed a seal of verifying Ultra Violet and an Acknowledgment was given to the Complainant. In the usual course of banking, on the aforesaid date on that evening the 1^st Opposite Party Bank sent the captured data's/images from the above mentioned Cheque through electronic form to the Central Processing Location, the Clearing House of the Opposite Party Bank, at this juncture as illustrated above, there is no question arises in respect of verifying the name from the records available with the 1^st Opposite Party Bank. On 05.01.2016, the Clearing House communicated to the 1^st Opposite Party Bank of the return of Cheque for the reason that there is Mis-match of the Title Name in the Cheque with the records available in the Opposite Party Bank. This has to be seen in the background that while opening the Saving Bank Account the Complainant wrote his name as "J.Yoganandan'' and moreover in the Declaration dated 02.01.2015 enclosed with the Account Opening Form, the Complainant mentioned that his actual name is "J.Yoganandan" and hence requested the 1^st Opposite Party Bank to consider the name accordingly as described in the actual name. Immediately on the communication from the Clearing House, the 1st Opposite Party Bank was making preparations to send information to the Complainant as like other dishonoured Cheque of other Account Holders. At this juncture the Complainant approached the 1st Opposite Party Bank, enquired about the Cheque and he was informed the return of Cheque, immediately the Complainant created a ruckus in the 1st Opposite Party Bank and in that circumstance the Complainant used an unparliamentary and filthy languages in front of all the customers and ladies staff.

The Opposite Party Bank explained the situation to the Complainant and executed an Indemnity Bond (Declaration) on 05.01.2016 itself and the Cheque was again sent to the Clearing House of the Opposite Party Bank and on clearance of both Payment Bank and the Clearing House of the Opposite Party Bank, the Cheque amount was credited on 06.01.2016 in his Saving Bank's Account No.907104000060668. The Opposite party Without prejudice submit that despite receiving the amount the Complainant with an awful intention sent queries by way of a Application dated 25.01.2016 to the RTI Cell of the Opposite Party Bank, for which the Opposite Party Bank gave its Reply vide its Letter dated 03.02.2016. Again with an incongruous intention the Complainant again sent queries by way of a Application dated 24.03.2016 to the RTI Cell of the Opposite Party Bank for which befitting Reply vide its Letter dated 21.04.2016 was also sent. After four months the present Complaint has been preferred by the Complainant.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-16  were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-9  were marked.   

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

        Upon perusal of records it is evident that the Complainant was maintaining an Account with  the 1^st Opposite Party in the name of J.Yoganandan having A/c No.9071040000060668, and Customer ID.71360929. The contention of the Complainant is that on 04.01.2016 he had deposited a cheque dated 16.12.2015 bearing No.890420 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., in favour of Yoganandan Jagannathan which was the settlement amount towards the award of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai South and the status of the cheque had to be reported to the Hon’ble Forum on 07.01.2016 for cancellation of Arrest Warrant against the Chairman and the Branch Manager, Max Life Insurance Co., Ltd. Mr.Kuldip manning the counter after verifying the cheque had acknowledged with seal as “O.V.Verified Signature.” To the shock of the Complainant, he was told that the Cheque was returned as “Title differs”, which is against RBI guidelines. Further contended that he had deposited some other cheques drawn in the name of Yoganandan.J, Jagannathan Yoganandan, Yoganandan Jagannathan which were collected and credited into his account. Hence the return of cheque under “Title Differs” amount deficiency in service.

      The contention of the Opposite parties was that when the cheques are presented to a Bank at the end of the day, the scanner of the computer captures the data encrypted in the MICR bank in the CTS 2010 Cheques. To ensure safety and security  the data and images captured of all the cheques presented on the day are sent through the electronic form to the Central Processing Location, the Clearing House, on which process an Ultra Violet Verified Seal is affixed at the back of the cheque for the purpose of authenticity of cheque and not for the verification of title and other details mentioned manually. From the Clearing House it is electronically forwarded to the Payment Bank. Before forwarding to the Payment Bank, the Clearing House verifies the instrument details and if any variation, the Clearing House intimates the concerned branch after the working hours or on the next day. Accordingly on 04.01.2016 when the Complainant deposited the cheque, the cheque was scanned of the data encrypted in the MICR band and images and the 1^st Opposite Party affixed a seal of verifying Ultra Violet and an acknowledgement was given to the Complainant. In the usual course of banking the 1^st Opposite Party had sent the images of the Cheque through electronic form to the Central Processing Location, the Clearing House, which communicated on 04.01.2016 after 19.00 hrs that the cheque was returned for the reason mis-match of the title in the cheque. At the time of opening the Overdraft Account the Complainant wrote his name as J.Yoganandan. At this juncture the Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party, he was informed about the return of cheque, on executing an Indemnity Bond on 05.01.2016, the cheque amount was credited on 06.01.2016.

           Now the question to be decided is whether the return of cheque by the 1^st Opposite Party Bank and failure to obtain signature on indemnify on 04.01.2016 amounted to deficiency in service. The contention of the Complainant that at the time of opening Account with the Opposite Party he had given certain documents including the PAN Card containing the name of the Complainant as Jagannathan Yoganandan, Aadhaar Card with the name as J.Yoganandan and in the India Driving Licence (Tamil Nadu) as Yoganandan J, if expanded would read as Yognandan Jagannathan. Further contended that he had deposited several other instruments which were credited into his account drawn in the name of Yoganandan Jagannathan, Yoganandan, Jagannathan Yoganandan, hence the return of cheque under “Title Differs” amounts to deficiency in service could not be sustained because the Complainant at the time of opening  the Account  on 02.01.2015, has given his name as J.Yoganandan, and he has given a declaration that his actual name is J.Yoganandan and that there is discrepancy in the name as appearing in the ID Proof as Jagannathan Yoganandan and to consider his actual name as J.Yognanandan for opening his Account with the 1^st Opposite Party Bank  as found in Ex.B-2. Whileso the Complainant, very well knew that there is discrepancy of name in the Cheque issued and that of the Account Holder’s name, and the mismatch of name in the cheque.When the Complainant had approached the 1^st Opposite Party on 05.01.2016 he was informed about the cheque return  for the reason “Title Differs”. On executing an Indemnity Bond his cheque was credited the next day on 06.01.2016 in his Account after getting clearance from the Payment Bank and the clearing House of the Opposite Party. The other instruments which were credited in his account as shown in Ex.A-12 were after the execution of the Indemnity Bond by the Complainant.

In the light of the foregoing discussions we are of the view that the  Opposite Parties had acted in terms of the banking procedure and hence this Commission is of the view that the Opposite Parties had  not committed any deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

 

 

 

8.      Point No.2 & 3

        We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and thereby Complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in the complaint. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

        In the result this complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 20^th  day of July 2022.  

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                           T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                         B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                          MEMBER I                                                            PRESIDENT 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	16.12.2015	Cheque for Rs.215908/- covering letter of Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd
Ex.A2	04.01.2016	Acknowledgement of Challan for deposit of cheque for Rs.215908/-
Ex.A3	16.12.2015	Copy of Axis Bank Ltd. Cheque No.890420 for Rs.25908/-
Ex.A4	05.01.2016	Copy of Indemnity duly signed
Ex.A5	05.01.2016	Copy of Letter submitted by the Complainant
Ex.A6	14.01.2016	Copy of letter by IDBI Bank Ltd
Ex.A7	11.01.2016	Warrant counterfoil of L&T Infrastucture Finance Co. Ltd for Rs.900/-
Ex.A8	12.01.2016	Warrant counterfoil Dhanuka Agritech Ltd for Rs.450/-
Ex.A9	09.02.2016	Cheque No.088564 of IDBI Bank Ltd for Rs.25,000/- deposited with Bank of India. Cheque No.757269 of Bank of India for Rs.25,000/- deposited with IDBI Bank Ld
Ex.A10	-	Pan card copy in the name of Jagannathan Yoganandan J S/o Jagannathan
Ex.A11	02.04.2014	Copy of Driving Licence in the name of Yoganandan J S/o Jagannathan
Ex.A-12	11.02.2016	Statement of Account of 0907653700000426
Ex.A-13	11.11.2016	Complainant Letter to Branch Manager
Ex.A-14	11.11.2016	Complaint letter to General Manager
Ex.A-15	20.11.2016	Paper cutting of the Hindu
Ex.A-16	03.12.2016	Letter from IDBI Bank Ltd.

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

 

Ex.B-1	04.01.2016	Opposite Party Bank clearing House communication to the 1st Opposite Party Bank
Ex.B-2	20.11.2016	Over draft Account Opening Form in respect of the Complainant “J.Yoganandan”
Ex.B-3	02.01.2015	Declaration accompanying the saving Bank Account form
Ex.B-4	05.01.2016	Indemnity bond(declaration) executed by the Complainant
Ex.B-5	-	Overdraft account No.0907653700000426 in respect of the Complainant “J.Yoganandan”
Ex.B-6	25.01.2016	RTI application preferred by the Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex.B-7	03.02.2016	Reply letter of the Opposite Party Bank
Ex.B-8	24.03.2016	RTI application preferred by the Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex.B-9	21.04.2016	Reply Letter of the Opposite Party Bank.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                                   T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                                MEMBER I                                                         PRESIDENT