BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.99/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 22^nd November 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.                           

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to refund Rs.1,037/- paid towards cheque dishonour charges and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service, mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant borrowed loan from M/s Bajaj Finserv and had issued cheques towards payment of instalment of loan amount.  On two occasions, the complainant’s cheque presented for realization of amount were dishonoured, even though there was sufficient balance in his account and also levied cheque return charges of Rs.368/- on each month and a total sum of Rs.1,037/-. The same has been alleged due to negligence of opposite party and deficiency in service.  Hence, the aggrieved filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party No.1 filed version, denying the allegation as false.  The complainant’s account is a salaried account under the salary scheme, which offers the customer with direct salary credits coming into the account.  On failure to credit the monthly salary for three consecutive months, the special feature offered shall stand withdrawn and the account will be treated as normal savings account and all charges be levied and applied.  There was no salary is credited to the said account since 05.09.2012, as such, the complainant’s account automatically treated as normal savings account.  The deposit of amount on 02.06.2016 is denied.  There was Rs.48.93 balance in the account as per banks’ statement.  Hence, the cheque issued in favour of M/s Bajaj Finance Service was dishonoured.  From the deposit of Rs.4,320/- on 05.07.2016, after recovery of cheque return charges, there was only a balance of Rs.4,023.39 as on 13.07.2016, as such, the cheque was not honoured.  Hence, the deficiency in service is denied and prays for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.     The complaint against opposite party No.2 is withdrawn by the complainant.  Hence, opposite party No.2 deleted. 
5.     The opposite party No.3 remained absent, hence placed exparte.
6.     To establish the facts, the complainant and opposite party No.1 have filed their affidavit evidence and relied on several documents and also filed written arguments.  Heard the oral submission and on perusing the material on record, posted for orders.
7.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by opposite parties, for not honouring his cheque and levy of cheque return charges, in spite of sufficient balance in the account and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2. What order?

8.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order, for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.    Point No.1:- The complainant maintained an account bearing No.91010043982940, with opposite party No.1, since 2010.  The said account was a zero balance account and had availed cheque facility also. 
10. On availing loan from M/s Bajaj Finserv, he had issued the cheque of opposite party No.1 towards repayment of monthly EMI, which was to be cleared through E.C.S on 5^th of every month.
11. Towards payment of loan amount, a sum of Rs.4,320/- was deposited with opposite party No.1, on 02.06.2016, which was acknowledged through challan.  When the cheque presented by M/s Bajaj Finserv to recover the loan amount, the same was dishonoured, on the grounds of insufficient funds, even though there was sufficient amount in the account.  Thereby, complainant was forced to pay the loan amount by cash on 10.06.2016 apart from payment of cheque return charges of Rs.368/-.
12. Once again, a sum of Rs.4,320/- was deposited to his account on 05.07.2016 and acknowledged through challan.  Again the cheque presented for recovery of instalment amount was dishonoured for the reason insufficient balance, though there was sufficient amount in the account.  Thereby, once again he had paid cash to Bajaj Finserv on 12.07.2016, along with cheque return charges of Rs.368/-. The facts were brought to the notice of opposite party No.1, but in vain.  The complainant alleged due to negligence and deficiency in service, he was forced to pay a total penalty of Rs.1,037/- and closed his account with opposite party No.1 bank.  There was no action to the legal notice, he suffered mental agony, reputation and hardship.  Hence, the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
13. The opposite party No.1 accepted that the complainant’s account was a salaried account salary scheme opened with zero balance.  The special account provided the complainant with regular direct salary credits into his account.  In case, the salary is not credited into the said account for three consecutive months, the special privilege under the salary account shall be withdrawn and the account would be treated as normal savings account, entitling the opposite party bank to levy charges as applicable to normal accounts.
14. The last salary received under the complainant’s said account was on 05.09.2012 and thereafter no salary was credited to his account.  As such, the account was treated as normal savings account.  The opposite party No.1 denied the deposit of Rs.4,320/- on 02.06.2016 and contend that, there was balance of only Rs.48.93 as on 02.06.2016 as per the account statement.  Hence, the cheque issued by M/s Bajaj Finserv, was dishonoured.  The deposit of Rs.4,320/- on 05.07.2016 was admitted and further, after recovery of lien by the bank, the balance was only Rs.4,022.19 as on 13.07.2016, as such, the cheque presented by M/s Bajaj Finserv was dishonoured for insufficient balance in the account.  Thereby, a total penalty of Rs.1,037/- was imposed towards cheque return charges.  The complainant had failed to maintain sufficient balance in the account to honour the cheque issued by him to M/s Bajaj Finserv.  As such, the allegations of negligence and deficiency in service is denied as false and contend that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as prayed for and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
15. Considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record, the complainant had availed the benefit of salary account benefit with zero balance account with opposite party No.1 bank.  As per the terms and conditions, the said scheme will be treated as normal savings account on failure to credit the monthly salary for more than three consecutive months and the normal charges are applicable.  However, to establish the contention that the salary was not credited to complainant’s account since 05.09.2012, no material evidence has been placed.  The complainant relied on the statement of account for the period between 01.04.2015 to 13.07.2016, wherein the deposit of Rs.4,320/- on 02.06.2016 was not credited to his account.  In support of deposit of the said amount on 02.06.2016, the complainant relied on the counter foil of opposite party bank, with seal and signature of its officials.  Thereby, negligence on the part of opposite party officials is established.
16. Further, the complainant relied on judgement rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission, reported in 2009 CTJ 27 CP (NC), it was held the negligence by the bank officials as negligent for not crediting the amount to the account of the complainant, when he produces the counterfoil bearing seal and signature of the officials of the bank and the same is considered as deficiency in service by the bank. 
17. In view of the above decision, we opine there is negligence on the part of opposite party and hence, they are liable to refund Rs.1,037/- recovered towards penalty for dishonour of cheques and also to pay compensation for the deficiency in service.   Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
18. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, the complaint is to be allowed in part.  The opposite party is hereby directed to refund Rs.1,037/- collected as penalty for dishonour of cheques with interest and to pay compensation for negligence and deficiency in service.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay Rs.1,037/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 30.03.2017 to till this date, to the complainant in 30 days.  In default, to pay penalty of Rs.50/- per day until payment.
3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- for the negligence and deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant, in 30 days.  Failure to pay, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.10,000/- till compliance.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Opposite party No.2 is deleted.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 22^nd November 2018)