BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.497/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 2^nd September 2016

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

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - 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 party, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to issue proper correct endorsement to their customer who have presented the cheque for realization and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation and Rs.150/- towards cheque return charges with such other reliefs.
2.     The cheque issued by the complainant, bearing No.812879 for a sum of Rs.26,815/-, has been presented for realization on 03.09.2014 to the opposite party Bank, who issued a memo, stating exceeds arrangement, even though sufficient balance was maintained in the account.  The complainant’s Banker informed the complainant that, the said cheque has not been presented for clearance and there was sufficient balance in his account.  Because of the said memo dated 03.09.2014, issued by opposite party bank, complainant suffered embarrassment.  A legal notice issued on 17.09.2014, calling upon to verify.  The opposite party bank issued an untenable reply on 13.10.2014.  A rejoinder issued by the complainant on 01.11.2014 was not replied.  However, the opposite party bank failed to substantiate the issue of the endorsement of the cheque returned as exceeds arrangement.  Aggrieved complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party in its version denies the allegations and submits that the complaint is not maintainable against it, as there is no relationship of consumer and service provider with each other.  Opposite party admits the receipt of the cheque bearing No.812879 from its customer for realization and forwarded the same to Punjab and Sind Bank at Mysuru, for needful.  However, the said bank returned the said cheque with an endorsement “Exceeds arrangement”.  On receipt of a legal notice on 17.09.2014 by the complainant, it verified and replied on 13.10.2014, denying the allegations, directed the complainant to contact the Punjab and Sind Bank, and to get clarifications.  As such, there is no deficiency in service and hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To establish the facts, the complainant filed his affidavit along with documents.  The opposite party filed its affidavits in lieu of evidence.  Written arguments filed and heard oral submissions.  On perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite party in not returning the cheque with proper endorsement, thereby entitled for the reliefs sought?
3. What order?

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

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Does not survive for consideration.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant issued a cheque bearing No.812879, for a sum of Rs.26,815/- on 30.08.2014, to M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Son’s Ltd., Madhurai, Tamilnadu, which has been presented for realization to the opposite party’s bank and cheque returned with an endorsement to drawee (i.e. M/s TVS Ltd.,) stating “exceeds arrangement”. 
8.    The complainant submitted that, there was sufficient balance in his account on that day.  Further, contended that, his banker vide written communication, informed him that, the said cheque has not been presented for realization to it and there was sufficient balance in the account.  Thereby, the complainant suffered embarrassment, mental agony, reputation.  Hence, contended that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and prayed for reliefs.
9.    The opposite party contended that, there is no relationship with the complainant, as such, the complainant does not fall under the purview of the definition “Consumer” under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. Further contended that, it has sent the cheque to the complainant’s Banker (i.e. Punjab and Sind Bank) for realization, who returned the cheque with endorsement on 03.09.2014.  As such, it contended that, the complainant’s Banker only responsible for non-realization of the cheque and the endorsement issued by the Bank.  Thereby, contended that, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by it and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. On perusal of the material on record, the contention of the complainant that, the opposite party had not presented the said cheque to his Banker for realization and there was sufficient balance in his account on that day is not accepted, in absence of the evidence.  To establish return of the cheque for the reason “exceeds arrangement”, neither by the complainant nor by opposite party.  Hence, both complainant and opposite party have failed to establish their contention.
12. In view of the above, we opine that the complaint is frivolous one and hence, the complaint is not maintainable for lack of proper material evidence.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
13. Point No.2:- In view of the above, this point does not survive for consideration.   
14. Point No.3:- From the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(D