BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No: 162/2008

Dated: 31..05..2010

Complainant:

D.A. Aneesh, T.C 8/1029, Pranavam, Thirumala – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite party:

Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Kowdiar Branch, Nakolaikkal, TTC Junction, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. R. Kunjukrishnan Potty)

This O.P having been heard on 10..05..2010, the Forum on 31..05..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The complainant who is a businessman has approached this Forum with the following grievance: The complainant is an account holder of the opposite party bank. On 31/3/2008, the complainant had issued a cheque for Rs. 7,031/- to 'JEM ASSOCIATES', but when they presented the same, it was returned for 'Funds insufficient' though there was sufficient amount in his account to honour the same. Hence this complaint for deficiency in service against opposite party.

2. The opposite party has filed their version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is an account holder of the opposite party bank. On 31/3/2008 two cheques, ie cheque No. 29696 drawn for an amount of Rs. 7,031/- and cheque No. 29695 drawn for an amount of Rs. 8,360/- issued by the complainant came to the opposite party bank through MICR local clearing at 8.30 a.m. The said cheques came up for collection simultaneously especially through MICR local clearing, the said cheques are to be returned on the same day. The total debit in the available account amounted to Rs. 15,391/- and the balance available in the account was Rs. 7,607/-. Based on the available balance the opposite party bank returned the cheques. There was no option for the opposite party bank but to return the cheques since the opening balance held in the account of the complainant at the relevant time was only Rs. 7,607/-. The said balance amount was not sufficient to discharge the amount covered by the cheques which came up for collection through local clearing. The alleged cheque bearing No. 29696 for Rs. 7,031/- did not come over the counter of the opposite party bank. As per the banking system the opposite party bank has a duty to reject whatever the cheques received on the same day in the same account if the account holder is not maintaining sufficient balance in the said account and there is no provision to honour a single cheque. The cheque referred in the complainant happened to be dishonoured only on account of the negligence and carelessness of the complainant himself. The loss, if any incurred by the complainant on account of the return of the cheque was only due to the negligent behaviour of the complainant in not maintaining sufficient balance at the time of issue of the cheques to his business associates. Hence the opposite party bank cannot be blamed for the irresponsibility of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Complainant has filed affidavit and has been examined as PW1, marked Exts. P1 to P6. Opposite party had no evidence.

From the contentions raised, the following issues arise for consideration:

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs as claimed?

4. Points (i) & (ii) : Admittedly, a cheque No. 29696 for Rs.7,031/- of the complainant who is an account holder of the opposite party Bank came to the opposite party bank for clearing. According to the complainant though there was sufficient balance for clearing the said cheque, the opposite party returned the same for reason 'Funds insufficient''. The complainant has produced Ext. P10 the cheque and Ext. P11 which is the cheque return memo wherein the cheque number stated is 29696 for Rs. 7,031/- dated 31/3/08. The learned counsel for the opposite party had objected the marking of the same on the ground that it is a document which has not been issued to the complainant. Ext. P10 is the cheque and Ext. P11 is the cheque return memo pertaining to the cheque issued by the complainant. Hence we find no force in that objection. According to the opposite party, on 31/3/08 2 cheques for an amount of Rs. 7,031/- and for Rs. 8,360/- issued by the complainant came to the opposite party bank for clearing. That these cheques came up for collection simultaneously especially through MICR local clearing that the total debit in the available account amounted to Rs. 15,391/- and the balance available in the account was Rs. 7,607/- and based on the available balance the cheques were returned. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether this act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

6. The opposite party contend that as there was only Rs. 7,607/- available as opening balance in the account of the complainant at the relevant time, the opposite party was left with no other option than to return the cheques as the said balance amount was not sufficient to discharge the amounts covered by the cheques. The opposite party has further contended that the complainant had not maintained sufficient fund to discharge the amount of the cheques at the relevant time of 8.30 a.m and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 8,500/- at 2.30 p.m on 31/3/08 which was after the returning of the said cheques.

7. We have gone through the documents on record. Opposite party has not produced any documents for corroborating their contention. The opposite party has contended that as per the banking system, the bank has a duty to reject the cheques received on the same day in the same account if the account holder is not maintaining sufficient balance in the said account and there is no provision to honour a single cheque. But the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the same. Furthermore at the time of cross examination, the complainant had answered the question putforward by the opposite party as "രണ്ട് cheques–നുമുള്ള മതിയായ തുക ഇല്ലാത്തതുകൊണ്ടാണ് bank cheques bounce ചെയ്തത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു (Q) യോജിക്കുന്നില്ല bank ഒരിക്കലും അങ്ങനെ awarenessതന്നിട്ടില്ല,, രണ്ടും രണ്ട് parties നുള്ള cheques ആണ്(A)".

8. From the above it is clear that though there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant, the opposite party did not honour the same. In the absence of any cogent evidence to support the said contention of the opposite party that there is no provision to honour a single cheque as discussed supra, we find that the opposite party ought to have been honoured the cheque for Rs. 7,031/- issued by the complainant in view that the complainant had sufficient funds to encash the cheque issued in favour of his customer namely 'Jem Associates' and such refusal to honour the cheque issued by the complainant having sufficient funds in his account is a serious negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposie party bank. The complainant who is a bonafide customer of the opposite party bank has suffered loss for bouncing his cheque issued in the name of "Jem Associates" inspite of having sufficient fund in his credit. In the above circumstance the complainant has to be compensated for the loss he has suffered and for the loss of his reputation as a businessman before his customer ie., 'Jem Associates'.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest a the rate of 9% from the date of order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day May, 2010.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No.162/2008

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : D.A. Aneesh

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Statement of transactions in Savings Account Number.

P2 : Copy of D.D No.029696

P3 : Copy of advocate notice dated 16/4/08

P4 : Copy of postal receipt dated 16/4/08

P5 : Copy of acknowledgment cards

P6 : Statement of account for the period from 1/3/08 to 30/4/08.

P7 : Copy of advocate notice dated 16/4/08

P8 : Acknowledgment card addressed to opposite party.

P9 : Postal receipt dated 16/4/08.

P10 : D.D of Rs. 7,031/- dated 28/03/08.

P11 : Cheque Return Memo dated 31/3/08.

III. Opposite party's witness : NIL

IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL

PRESIDENT