Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/83/2016

K.Nalene Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

manager Indian Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.05.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  26.04.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY THE 26^th DAY OF APRIL 2018

 

C.C.NO.83 /2016

 

 

K.Nalene Prasad,

Old No:1/84 New No:62 P.H.Road,

Nerkundram, Chennai – 107.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. Manager PNB,

Plot No: 4055, 4^th Main Road,

Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40.

 

2. Manager Indian Overseas Bank,

Koyambedu Branch,

No:57/7 Kaliamman Koil Street,

Sai Nagar Chinmaya Nagar,

Chennai – 92.

 

3. Assistant Engineer TNEB,

Operations & Maintenance,

No: 03 A Road,

Koyambedu Market Complex,

Chennai – 92.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 27.05.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      :M/s Yurendra kumar & N.Latha

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party               : S.Vaidyanathan

 

Counsel for 2^nd   Opposite Party             : K.Balajee and D.Kumar

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party               : R.Amernath Rao Khande &

                                                                   C.Krishnamurthy

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to repay the amount of Rs.3,847/- and also compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant is a Consumer of the 3^rd opposite party and he is holding Electricity Service Connections Nos. 406-001-53 & 406-001-700 and for the said connection the complainant regularly paying charges to the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant is holding Savings Bank Account with the 1^st opposite party bank. The complainant issued the 1^st opposite party bank cheque No.195575 dated 04.04.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,846/- for payment of Electricity Bill. The said cheque was passed and the said sum was debited in the complainant account on 18.04.2016.

          2. However, the complainant EB connection was disconnected on 22.04.2016 as the cheque issued by him was dishonoured by the 2^nd opposite party on 20.04.2016 for the reason of insufficient funds. The complainant thereafter made cash payment of Rs.3,487/- inclusive of penalty  and reconnection charges of Rs.1,001/-. His connection was restored on 23.04.2016. The complainant and his family suffered a lot due to disconnection of service. Even though sufficient fund was available in the account, the 2^nd opposite party negligently dishonoured the cheque. The act of the opposite party to the complainant is deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to repay the amount of Rs.3,847/- and also compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of the complaint. 

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party admits that he had received the cheque No.195575 for clearing on 18.04.2016 through its Centralized cheque collection centre at Chennai. The 1^st opposite party debited the cheque to the account of the complainant on 18.04.2016 and the amount of Rs.2,846/- was remitted by him to the second opposite party branch by NEFT transactions. The transaction intimated to the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party also consented to receive the amount by NEFT to their account. This opposite party thought that the amount will be credited to the 3^rd opposite party account by the 2^nd opposite party. However, there was no information about that for over a week.

          4. The 2^nd opposite party should have credited the amount to the payees account. Suddenly on 27.04.2016, the 1^st opposite party   received mail from the 2^nd opposite party that the 3^rd opposite party refused to accept the amount sent by the 1^st opposite party and hence they were returning the NEFT amount. This clearly shows that the 2^nd opposite party deliberately did not take any action to credit the proceeds of the cheque remitted by the 1^st opposite party and simply returned the cheque. This opposite party had taken all the steps to ensure the cheque was not returned by the 2^nd opposite party and payment was credited to the 3^rd opposite party. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party admits that the 3^rd opposite party is their customer. The 3^rd opposite party deposited a cheque bearing No.195575 dated 04.04.2016 drawn on the Punjab National Bank issued by the complainant. The said cheque was presented for clearing and the same was returned by the 1^st opposite party stating ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant is not having any account with his opposite party and hence is not a Consumer. This opposite party is only a collecting banker and has not returned the cheque as stated in the complainant. Hence, this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant issued a cheque for Rs.2,846/- for payment of two service connection for the months of February & March 2016 drawn on the 1^st opposite party bank cheque. This opposite party deposited the said cheque with his banker/2^nd opposite party for clearance on 15.04.2016. His banker returned the cheque with endorsement as insufficient fund on 22.04.2014. This fact was intimated to the complainant on the same day and he paid the charges on 23.04.2016 with penalty. Once the cheque is dishonoured as per section 15 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, such Consumer shall pay charges for dishonor of the cheque and further cash payment only will be accepted in respect of the consumer. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant is the Consumer of the 3^rd opposite party and he is having Savings Bank Account with the 1^st opposite party /bank. The 2^nd opposite party is the banker of the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant issued Ex.A1 cheque bearing No.195575 dated 04.04.2016 in favour of the 3^rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,846/- towards electricity bill for two connections. The said cheque was drawn on the 1^st opposite party/ bank. The 3^rd opposite party presented the cheque for clearance with his banker/ 2^nd opposite party on 15.04.2016. The 1^st opposite party received clearing of his cheque on 18.04.2016 through its Centralized cheque collection center and he immediately sent the cheque amount of Rs.2,846/- by NEFT to the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party also debited a sum of Rs.2,846/-  in Ex.A4 Savings Account of the complainant maintained by him on 18.04.2016.  The Ex.A5 is the consumption card issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant for two connections. However, the cheque (Ex.A2) was returned by the 2^nd opposite party on 20.04.2016 for the reason ‘funds insufficient’.

          9. The complainant would argued that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have wrongly  returned the cheque for the reason of funds insufficient, even though sufficient fund is available in the account and the 3^rd opposite party wrongly disconnected the electricity connection and collected penal charges and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          10. The 1^st opposite party is the banker of the complainant. Hence the complainant issued Ex.A1 cheque drawn on 1^st opposite party to the 3^rd opposite party towards payment of consumed electricity charges. The 3^rd opposite party presented the cheque only on 15.04.2016. On receiving information from the centralized cheque collection centre on 18.04.2016 for clearing the Ex.A1 cheque, the 1^st opposite party immediately remitted the amount to the 2^nd opposite party by NEFT. This was also proved about the debit payment in the complainant account through Ex.A4 Statement of Account of the complainant. Therefore as for as the 1^st opposite party concerned, he honoured the cheque and also up dated the complainant account by debiting the cheque amount. Hence we hold that the 1^st opposite party has not returned the cheque as alleged by the 2^nd opposite party and it is further held that the 1^st opposite party has not committed any deficiency to the complainant.

          11. The 3^rd opposite party is concerned he had not received the funds from his banker and he marked his returned cheque as Ex.B7. He immediately intimated to the complainant about the return of cheque and the complainant also paid the amount on 23.04.2016 by cash payment. The 2^nd opposite party would state that the 3^rd opposite party refused to accept the amount and hence the cheque was returned. However, the cheque was returned for the reason of funds insufficient. If the 3^rd opposite party would have refused to receive the cheque amount, the 2^nd opposite party should have quoted the same reason and returned the cheque. Instead, he returned the cheque for insufficient funds, even though sufficient fund available in the complainant account. The 2^nd opposite party has not swiftly acted in honouring the cheque immediately on receipt of the same on 15.04.2016. The 2^nd opposite party slept over the matter without taking action at his end and simply returned the cheque proves the deficiency committed by him. However, there is no evidence to prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1&3. Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties 1 & 3 have not committed deficiency in service and the 2^nd opposite party has committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

12. POINT NO:2

          As the 2^nd opposite party committed deficiency in service by returning the cheque wrongly, the complainant forced to pay the electricity bill with penal charges. Due to such act, the complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant to meet ends of justice.  The complainant prayed to order refund of sum of Rs.3,847/- paid towards electricity charges cannot be ordered, as the same was paid towards consumption charges. Further due to wrong return of cheque by the 2^nd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party  started  accepting payment only by the way of cash and refuse to accept the cheque from the complainant. The return of cheque was made only due to the fault of the 2^nd opposite party and for which the Consumer/complainant cannot be insisted to pay the consumption charges only by the way of cash. In such circumstances, the 3^rd opposite party can be directed to accept the cheque payment made by the complainant towards electricity consumption charges in future from the date of this order. The 2^nd opposite party can be also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges to the complainant. The complaint in respect of the 1^st opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

 

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 3^rd Opposite Party is ordered to accept the cheque payment to be made by the complainant in future from the date of this order towards his Electricity Consumption Charges and the 2^nd opposite party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation  for deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 1st opposite party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said compensation amount  shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th   day of April 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 04.04.2016                   Cheque

Ex.A2 dated 20.04.2016                   Cheque dishonour memo

Ex.A3 dated 23.04.2016                   E.B bill payment receipts

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Passbook details with statement of account

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     EB Meter Cards

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 18.04.2016                   Mail from RCC Chennai to IOB, Koyambedu

                                                     confirming credit of cheque proceeds through

                                                     NEFT

 

Ex.B2 dated 18.04.2016                   Screen shot of NEFT Transaction for Rs.2,846/-

                                                    Ref.ID 64530737 dt. 18.04.2016

 

Ex.B3 dated 26.07.2016                   Screen shot of Finacle Transaction Interface for

                                                    NEFT sent to IOB from A/C of Nagasudhakar

                                                    Reddy

 

Ex.B4 dated 27.04.2016                   Mail from IOB Koyambedu to RCC,  PNB

                                                    Chennai returning NEFT of 2,846/-

 

Ex.B5 dated 27.04.2016                   Mail from RCC, Chennai to IOB, Koyambedu in

                                                     reply to their mail in Sl.No.4 above

 

Ex.B6 dated 29.04.2016                   Screen short of credit of NEFT for 2,846/-

                                                     received from IOB to A/c 1988000202860640

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B7 dated 20.04.2016                   Cheque dishonour memo  

 

Ex.B8 dated 22.04.2016                   E.B bill payment receipts

Ex.B9 dated NIL                     Copy of the Consumer Ledger copy for the

                                                    service connections (1) 406 – 001-53  and (2)

                                                    406 – 001-700

 

 

Ex.B10 dated NIL                             Copy of the Register of cheques maintained

                                                     by TNEB

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ……. NIL …..

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT