Date of Filing      : 16.07.2018

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 23.09.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                            ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                                    ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.35/2018

THIS FRIDAY, THE 23th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

J.Lalitha,

A.Raveechandran,

Advocate & Notary,

Flat No.F1, Fortune Classic Apartments,

No.29, Hospital Road, Krishnapuram,

Ambattur, Chennai -600 053.                                                         ……Complainant.

                                                                            //Vs//

1.The Branch Manager,

    Indian Bank, Poonamallee,

   749-F, Trunk Road, Poonamallee, Chennai.

 

2.The Zonal Manager,

    Indian Bank Zonal Office,

   Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram,

   Kancheepuram District.

 

3.The Branch Manger,

    SMSO Permanent Nidhi Limited,

    Plot No.5/105, 1st Main Road,

    Banu Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai -600 053. 

 

4.The Branch Manager,

    Punjab National Bank,

   Banu Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053.                              …..opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                               :   M/s.A.Raveechandran, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties  1 & 2                             : M/s.S.Sugadev, Advocate. 

Counsel for the 3rd opposite party                                    :  exparte.

Counsel for the 4th opposite party                                    : M/s.S.Suresh, Advocate.

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 05.09.2022 in the presence of  M/s.A.Raveechandran Advocate counsel for the complainant and M/s.S.Sugadev Advocate counsel for the opposite parties 1& 2 and M/s.S.Suresh  Advocate counsel for the 4th opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.MURUGAN, MEMBER-II.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in not honouring the cheque along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1& 2 to pay full quantum of Rs.2,21,864/- for the dishonoured of cheques and compensation and for the mental agony suffered with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Sum and substance of the complaint:-

 

The complainant has filed a complaint U/S of Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking relief for the suffering met by her on account of cheque dishonoured in her Saving Banking Account although sufficient balance available to honour the cheques.  The entire transaction in the repayment chapter of her loan account got tarnished because of the dishonour of the cheque by the 1st opposite party.  The complainant who is a resident of Ambattur, Chennai has availed a loan by pledging the property under “Mortgage Loan” in SMSO Permanent Nidhi Limited, Ambattur, Chennai and the repayment of loan is through equated monthly instalment for which cheques issued on monthly basis.  Accordingly she has issued cheques and the amount of the each cheque is Rs.10,932/-.  It is stated by the complainant that on 23.03.2018 she received a phone call from the 3rd opposite party namely SMSO Permanent Nidhi Limited, Ambattur, Chennai stating that the cheque dated 20.02.2018 bearing No.662595 issued by her was returned unpaid with the reason “Paper not received” and she further states that apart from the cheque dated 20.02.2018, another cheque dated 20.03.2018 bearing No.662596 also returned unpaid by the 1st opposite party.  There is neither call from the 1st opposite party nor a message on the cheque returned unpaid by them to her.  It is the banker’s duty to inform on the status of the cheque dishonoured at their end to and the customers. No such information received by her which clearly denotes the deficiency in service by the banker.  In this case, the 1st opposite party stated the reason “Paper not received” irked the complainant as it is very new to hear such word she alleges.  Therefore she called for the statement of account from the 1st opposite party to verify the balance.  Even at this stage the 1st opposite party has not bothered to reply at the earliest but only after issuing notice through her counsel, they obliged.  There is no mention of the cheques dishonoured status even in the letter endorsing the statement though the complainant informed the 1st opposite party for the reason the statement sought for.  It shows the lethargic attitude of the 1st opposite party alleges the complainant.  The whole transaction of dishonouring the cheques, not informing the customer on the status of the cheque sent for collection, delayed reply on the request of statement of accounts clearly shows unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of a banker.  Therefore the complainant prays for relief of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered, Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency in customer service, to pay Rs.21,864/- towards the amount of dishonour of cheque.

Defence of the opposite parties:

The 1st opposite party in their version denies the allegations put forth by the complainant in strict proof of the same and state that the complainant is operating a savings/salary account with the 1st opposite party’s bank and cheque books are issued upon the request by the complainant. The 1st opposite party does not have the knowledge of the complainant mortgage loan. During the course of the banking the complainant’s cheque bearing No.662595 dated 20.02.2018 was presented by Punjab National Bank through “paper to follow method” for clearing.  Since the original cheque was not presented as stated by M/s Punjab National Bank, the 1st opposite party bank’s service branch has returned the cheque stating “paper not received, which reflected in the return memo.  The 1st opposite party states that like the earlier cheque, the cheque bearing No.662596 dated 24.03.2018 was presented by M/s Punjab National Bank for clearing and since the image of cheque when it was scanned by M/s Punjab Nation Bank is not clear. The 1st opposite party bank’s service branch requested the M/s. Punjab National Bank to represent the cheque with clear image and due to that return memo reflects words “Image not clear present again”.  The 1st opposite party states that it is the RBI regulations to deal the negotiable instrument vigilantly and with more clarity and on that basis the 1st opposite bank had done the exercise as stipulated and as regulated by the governing body and it is the duty of M/s. Punjab Nation Bank to stick on to the conditions laid by them for clearing the cheque and to comply the conditions, replied by the 1st opposite party service Branch in clearing the cheque.  In this case M/s. Punjab Nation Bank had not complied and 1st opposite party bank had left with no other option but to return the cheques.  Moreover M/s. Punjab Nation Bank who is the necessary party to the complaint which was not made as party and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed as non joinder of necessary parties as per 1st opposite party.  It is stated by the 1st opposite party that the complainant gave a request letter on 30.03.2018 which was received by them on 02.04.2018.  On 03.04.2018 itself the 1st opposite party sent a letter to the complainant to submit the return memo of the cheque.  In the mean while, the complainant’s husband has sent a letter on 23.04.2018 asking for details, for which reply was sent on 24.02.2018.  But on 30.03.2018 a statutory legal notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.  It is pertinent to establish here that, where and when ever a request from the clients, it will be replied by the appropriate authorities concerned and in this case also the same kind of practice was adopted and there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice, states that 1st opposite party.  The written argument filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party which is adopted by the 2nd opposite party as per records submitted. 

As per the written argument filed before this commission by the 4th opposite party, it is pleaded that they are not aware of the allegations between the complainant and the 1st & 2nd opposite parties.  The 4th opposite party has been impleaded as the 4th opposite party as per CMP No.60/2019 only at the intention of the 1st opposite party.  There is no relief sought for, as against the 4th opposite party by the complainant.  It is stated by the 4th opposite party that all the transactions were done between complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 and there is no connection between the 4th opposite party and the complainant, it is stated.  It is further stated by the 4th opposite party that when there is any communication difference, for seeking clarification, it has to be addressed between the banks, but the 1st opposite party, simply returned the cheque leaf, which is also amounts to deficiency in service.  The 1st opposite party has not followed the procedures in this case, states the 4th opposite party, which itself a bank.  It is stated by the 4th opposite party that “No proper steps were followed by the 1st opposite party during honouring the cheque”.  It is not the mistake done by the 3rd opposite party and 4th opposite party and they cannot be impleaded in this case and relief was not sought, either.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1to Ex.B4 were marked. 

 Points for consideration:-

Whether the alleged deficiency in service by the opposite parties in returning the cheque inspite of sufficient funds in the complainant’s account has been successfully proved by the complainant?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

 Point No.1

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations; 

Legal notice issued by the complainant to both the opposite parties dated 30.03.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;

Acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A2;

Letter of request by the opposite party to the complainant dated 03.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;

Reply request sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 20.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;

Acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A5; 

Letter of request for Statement of Accounts and return of memo sent by opposite party to the complainant dated 24.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;

Statement of Accounts from 2016-2018 financial year to show that there is sufficient funds in the complainant Bank Account Vide No.712393707 was marked as Ex.A7;

Cheque returned vide 662595 drawn from the opposite party Bank dated 20.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A8;

Cheque returned vide 662596 drawn from the opposite party Bank dated 20.03.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;

On the side of opposite parties 1&2 the following documents were filed in support of their defence;

Copy of cheque bearing No.662595 dated 20.02.2018 was marked as Ex.B1;

Copy of cheque bearing No.662596 dated 24.03.2018was marked as Ex.B2;

Letter sent by Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Poonamallee Branch dated 03.04.2018 was marked as Ex.B3;

Letter sent by Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Poonamallee Branch dated 24.04.2018 was marked as Ex.B4;

The complainant who is resident of Ambattur, Chennai -53 has availed a mortgage loan from SMSO Permanent Nidhi Limited Ambattur Chennai amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and the repayment of the loan is based on equated monthly instalment through cheque payment.  She has issued cheque for Rs.10932/- for each month.  It is stated that the cheque dated 20.02.2018 and 20.03.2018 with bearing No.662595 & 662596 for Rs.10,932/- each was returned by the complainant banker stating the reason for return as “Paper not received”.  The complainant states that there is enough balance is available in her Saving Bank account but inspite of that the opposite party has returned both the cheques, stating such reason.  It is further stated that the opposite party has not informed the complainant on the cheque returned but only through the beneficiary of the cheque SMSO Permanent Nidhi Limited Ambattur Chennai she came to know the cheque returned status.  The complainant has requested for statement of accounts from the opposite party on 30.03.2018 to ascertain the balance available in her account and received it on 24.02.2018.  Even then the opposite party never informed anything on the cheque returned matter, as per complainant.  The complainant states the episode of cheque returned without realization makes her discomfort in society and for no fault of her, her image is spoiled in society i.e., with the loan provider namely SMSO Permanent Nidhi Limited and in the family.  It is alleged by the complainant that the action of the 1st opposite party is wilful, lethargic, negligence and fine case of deficiency in service.  The complainant states that the whole transaction is of unfair trade practice against her and she had been put under mental agony and should be compensated for the lapse done by 1st opposite party and prayed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony,  Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency in service and to pay Rs.21,864/- towards the dishonoured cheques by the 1st opposite party.  The 1st opposite party has submitted that the cheque No.662595 dated 20.02.2018 which was presented by the 4th opposite party through “paper to follow method” for clearing.  Since the original cheque was not presented, the 1st opposite party service branch returned the cheque stating “Paper not received” which reflected in the return memo.  In the case of cheque bearing no.662596 dated 24.03.2018 which was also presented by 4th opposite party to 1st opposite party was scanned and image found not clear.  Therefore requested the 4th opposite party to represent the same with remark as “Image not clear present again”.  The 1st opposite party emphasis that based on RBI guidelines the transactions are carried out and the allegation by the complainant not maintainable.  The 4th opposite party has stated that there is no fault on their side.  The opposite party 1 & 2 are same and adopted together.  The 3rd opposite party has not submitted their version of fact in this case.

The fact of the case is that the cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured by the 1st opposite party even though balance is available in the Saving Bank Account maintained by the complainant.  The procedure of clearing the cheque between banks and the realization of proceeds is under norms as laid down by RBI for the negotiable instruments.  In this case, utter negligence made by the 1st opposite party in clearing the cheque though it is not new job to them, but it is their duty to honour the customers wants within purview of rules and regulation.  The complainant issued cheques to 3rd opposite party which in turn sent the same for collection through their banker namely the 4th opposite party.  On receipt of the cheques the 1st opposite party should have taken care to honour the cheques, even when there is some technical fault which requires rectification between banks.  In this case, the negligence is evident in the part of the 1st opposite party.  Thus, we hold that the opposite parties 1 & 2 had jointly committed deficiency in service in not honouring the cheque, inspite of sufficient fund available in the complainant’s Account.

With respect to the relief to be granted to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by him, we direct them to issue pay order for Rs.21,864/- along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- is awarded as cost. The role of 3rd and 4th opposite parties does not have impact on the whole transaction.  So they are not liable for the deficiency in service. 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed against the opposite parties 3 & 4 and partly allowed against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties directing them

a) to issue pay order amounting to Rs.21,864/- (Rupees twenty one thousand eight sixty four only) from the Saving Bank Account of the complainant without bank charges within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten only) towards compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the Member to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 23rd day of September 2022.

 

     -Sd-                                                      -Sd-                                                          -Sd-

 MEMBER-II                                     MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1 30.03.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant to both the opposite parties Xerox

Ex.A2 02.04.2018 Acknowledgement card. Xerox

Ex.A3 03.04.2018 Letter of request by the opposite party to the complainant Xerox

Ex.A4 20.04.2018 Reply request sent by the complainant to the opposite party Xerox

Ex.A5 20.04.2018 Acknowledgement card Xerox

Ex.A6 24.04.2018 Letter of request for Statement of Accounts and return of memo sent by opposite party to the complainant Xerox

Ex.A7 .............. Statement of Accounts from 2016-2018 financial year to show that there is sufficient funds in the complainant Bank Account Vide No.712393707 Xerox

Ex.A8 20.02.2018 Cheque returned vide 662595 drawn from the opposite party Bank Xerox

Ex.A9 ............... Cheque returned vide 662596 drawn from the opposite party Bank Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties1 & 2:-

 

Ex.B1 20.02.2018 Copy of cheque bearing No.662595 Xerox

Ex.B2 24.03.2018 Copy of cheque bearing No.662596. Xerox

Ex.B3 03.04.2018 Letter sent by Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Poonamallee Branch. Xerox

Ex.B4 24.04.2018 Letter sent by Branch Manager,Indian Bank, Poonamallee Branch. Xerox

 

 

 

        -Sd-                                                         -Sd-                                              -Sd-

   MEMBER-II                                            MEMBER-I                                 PRESIDENT