Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/489/2014

Arthur W John - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager of Syndicate Bank. - Opp.Party(s)

Arthur W John

09 Feb 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi, Member.)

ORDER

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the O.P. alleging deficiency in Banking service for retuning cheque as fund insufficient.

          2) The O.P. appeared through counsel and filed objection and affidavit and contending that there is no deficiency service on the part of the O.P. and the complaint is unsustainable in eye of law and the complainant has not brought true and correct fact before the forum, there is no locus standi to file the present complaint and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and there is no jurisdiction to file this complaint. Further the opponents contended that there is no personal knowledge of issuance of cheque by the complainant to his one Mrs. Conny Dias, for Rs.2,000/- and contended that the cheque is of non CTS 2010 and the complainant should have replaced the old cheque and CTS cheques are not been taken by the complainant from the bank due to this technical problem and wrong procedure adopted by the bank of Baroda where Mrs. Conny Dias, presented the cheque. Therefore this problem occurred. Further submitted that there was no intention to give bad service to the complainant and track this opponent to the court and they have taken sufficient care to avoid inconvience, and they have not damaged the image of the complainant and the complainant has not suffer any loss and due to the reasons mentioned after returning the chque and prayed to dismiss the complaint against the O.P.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and produced documents and O.P. has filed his affidavit.

          4) We have heard the arguments both sides and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          7) The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service of the part of the O.P. stating that the O.P. has return the cheque with an endorsement insufficient fund even there was sufficient balance in his account. The complainant submits that on 15/3/2014 in course of personal dealings with Mrs. Conny dias issued a cheque bearing No.201638 for Rs. 2,000/- dated 15/3/2014 who is residing at Mapusa Goa and the said person deposited the cheque for clearance through his banker that is the Bank of Baroda, City back office, Panji Goa but to a surprise the cheque was not encashed and the same was returned with an endorsement as “Insufficient Fund” even there was sufficient balance of Rs.70,000/- outstanding in his account and he was panicked as where did the money went. Immediately he rush to the O.P. bank and questioned in regard to sufficient balance and enquired as to why the cheque was returned but the O.P. gave evasive explanation. The complainant further submits that he was honestly issued the cheque and the endorsement has damaged the image of the complainant in the society and he has suffered mental torture. Further on 31/7/2014 the complainant issued letter to the O.P. and claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the damage of reputation but the O.P. has failed to reply the letter. The O.P. on the other hand appeared through counsel filed objection, affidavit and contending that there is no deficiency service on the part of the O.P. and the complaint is unsustainable in eye of law and the complainant has not brought true and correct fact before the forum, there is no locus standi to file the present complaint and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and there is no jurisdiction to file this complaint. Further the opponents contended that there is no personal knowledge of issuance of cheque by the complainant to his one Mrs. Conny Dias, for Rs.2,000/- and contended that the cheque is of non CTS 2010 and the complainant should have replaced the old cheque and CTS cheques are not been taken by the complainant from the bank due to this technical problem and wrong procedure adopted by the bank of Baroda where Mrs. Conny Dias, presented the cheque. Therefore this problem occurred. Further submitted that there was no intention to give bad service to the complainant and track this opponent to the court and they have taken sufficient care to avoid inconvience, and they have not damaged the image of the complainant and the complainant has not suffer any loss and due to the reasons mentioned after returning the chque and prayed to dismiss the complaint against the O.P.

          8) It is to be observed that and as per the submission/argument made by the complainant the O.P. bank has returned the cheque as “Insufficient Fund” though there was sufficient balance in the complainant account and to prove and show that there was balance in the account the complainant has produced statement of account dated 1^st march 2014 to 27^th may 2014 and cheque which is returned as “Insufficient Fund” is dated 15^th march 2014 and the amount of cheque drawn was for Rs.2,000/- and after going through the statement it reveals that there was sufficient fund in the account in the month of march and also the balance shown on 27^th may 2014 in the statement is Rs.63,617.68/-. The complainant also wrote a letter to the O.P. as contended by him and document produced before the forum but it is to be noted that the O.P. has not replied to the said letter but the O.P. appeared before the forum and denied the allegation all together made by the complainant and there is no denial by the O.P. in regards to receipt of the notice given by the complainant nor they have sufficiently explained as to why the cheque was returned as “Insufficient Fund” knowing that there is balance in the account of the complainant. Further, that before encashing or making clearance of the cheque in the normal course of the banking business the bank will definitely verify the books in maintained manually and in case of computer, wherein the account are maintained of the customer by the bank computer entries will be checked. But in the present case before returning the cheque the O.P. might have not observed the account and the outstanding balance of the complainant. It is bounded duty of the O.P. bank to see that the customer is valuable one and service should be provided with due care and caution. But in this present case the O.P. bank have fail to provide proper service to the complainant and returning of the cheque as “Insufficient Fund” even though not intentionally or oversight, it might be by which might lead to litigation or degrading the image of a person who is loyal person in the society. Hence, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. in providing service to the complainant.

          9) Hence looking to the facts and circumstances before the forum and considering the above observation the complainant has proved his case and deficiency in service on part of O.P.

          10) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

The O.P. is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards compensation. The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

If the order is not complied within stipulated period, O.P. is hereby directed to pay amount of Rs.500/- in additional to the compensation to the complainant.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 9^th day of February 2015)

Member                                      President.

gm*