BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.99/2008 Order dated this the 26th day of November 2008 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.C.K.Balaraju S/o Late Singana Kalaiah, Chandagalu Village, Mandya District. Now presently R/at Sri.C.K.Balaraju, Door No.2133, 2nd Cross, Ashokapuram, Mysore. (By Sri.K.M.Sreekantaswamy., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Secretary, The Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., V.V.Road, Mandya. (By Sri.T.Lokesh., Advocate) Date of complaint 23.09.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 13.10.2008 Date of order 26.11.2008 Total Period 1 Months & 13 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party to return the pass book of the complainant or duplicate pass book and further to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- within 6 weeks. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed against the Opposite party for compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost and also to return the pass book. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a attender in the Opposite party Bank and is having S.B. Account No.7073 and his salary use to be credited to his S.B.Account. The clerk of the S.B. Account Section who had received the pass book of the complainant did not return, in spite of so many requests. Further, on some false allegations he has been suspended from the Bank on 06.03.2008 ordering to pay subsistence allowance to the extent of half of his salary. Including the amount of Rs.6,200/- in his account and further, the subsistence allowance there should have been Rs.22,700/- in his account. He had issued cheque for Rs.5,000/- in favour of one Bhagyamma towards the loan borrowed by him and cheque dated 02.08.2008 issued by him was dis-honoured intentionally by the Opposite party Bank on 28.02.2008, stating refer to drawer though there was sufficient fund in his account. Said Bhagyamma is in the process of filing a criminal proceeding against him. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the present complaint is filed to direct the Opposite party to return the pass book and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the complainant was working as an attender and has his S.B.Account. It is false that clerk of S.B. Account has collected pass book and has not returned so far. The Opposite party Bank has suspended complainant from duty ordering that the complainant is entitled for termination benefit. It is denied that there was Rs.22,700/- in his account. The dis-honouring of the cheque issued by the complainant is not intentional one, but for the bonafide reasons, because the complainant had borrowed personal loan of Rs.20,000/- on 18.10.2005 and as on 08.03.2008 he was due to the bank a sum of Rs.3,785/-. Since, the complainant was due to the Bank to safeguard the interest of the bank by exercising the right of lien, his cheque dated 02.08.2008 has been dis-honoured by the bank on 28.08.2008. Further, the complainant has not complied with the suspension order. Therefore, the President of the Board passed an order for exercising the right of lien. Therefore, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trail, the Complainant has filed affidavit and produced the documents. The Opposite party has filed some documents, but not filed the affidavit. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the complainant proves that the S.B. Account Section Clerk has not returned the pass book? 2) Whether the dis-honour of the cheque dated 02.08.2008 issued by the complainant is justified? 3) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 4) What order? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are the complainant is a attender of the Opposite party Bank and is under suspension from 06.03.2008. It is also undisputed that is having S.B.Account No.7073 in the Opposite party and it is also undisputed that his subsistence allowance after suspension from 06.03.2008 is to be credited to the S.B.Account. The document also proves that the complainant obtained loan of Rs.20,000/- on 18.10.2005 and he also FD of Rs.2,000/- with Opposite party Bank. 9. The first grievance of the complainant is that the clerk of S.B. Account Section of the Opposite party Bank who received the pass book has not at all returned in spite of demands. Though the Opposite party has denied the same, but the complainant has filed the affidavit and his evidence has not been challenged by filing the affidavit of the concerned clerk of the S.B. Account Section. It is not the case that the complainant has lost the pass book somewhere so as to direct him to apply for duplicate pass book. Why the original pass book has been retained and not returned is not explained by the Opposite party at all by filing affidavit. Therefore, it is established by unchallenged evidence that the pass book of the complainant has been retained by the Opposite party Bank Official. 10. The undisputed fact is that the cheque dated 02.08.2008 issued by the complainant in favour of one Bhagyamma was presented through SBI, Mysore and Opposite party Bank has not honoured the cheque and sent back the cheque with endorsement refer to drawer. 11. The contention of the complainant is that there should have been Rs.22,700/- in his account which includes Rs.6,200/- in his account and the subsistence allowance. According to the complainant, there was sufficient fund in his account to honour the cheque, but intentionally the Opposite party Bank has dis-honoured the cheque on 28.08.2008 with a endorsement refer to drawer. But the contention of the Opposite party is that the complainant has borrowed personal loan of Rs.20,000/- and as on 08.03.2008 he was due to the bank a sum of Rs.3,785/- and exercising the right of lien the cheque has been dis-honoured on 28.08.2008, because the complainant has not complied the suspension order. Now, if we peruse the documents produced by both sides, it can safely held that the exercise of right of lien is intentional and unwarranted, because the account extract produced by the Opposite party shows that as on 01.08.2008 there was Rs.7,504/- and the account extract reveals the crediting of subsistence allowance after adjusting some amount towards the loan account. The Opposite party has produced copy of the loan account, wherein it shows that the copy filed is up to 08.03.2008 only, on that date the loan due was Rs.3,785/-. This account reveals that, they are deducting some amount from the salary every month to the loan account. According to the version of the Opposite party as on 08.03.2008 he was due of Rs.3,785/-, the cheque was presented on 02.08.2008 to the SBI, Mysore Branch and naturally after a week the cheque has been received by the Opposite party Bank and to reply the same it has taken time till 28.08.2008 and dis-honoured the cheque stating refer to drawer. The contention of the Opposite party is that they exercised the right of lien to safeguard the loan amount due by the complainant. But the Opposite party has suppressed the material fact that what was the amount due as on 02.08.2008 and they have not produced the loan account up to 28.08.2008 to prove whether actually he was due of Rs.3,785/- when the cheque was dis-honoured. It is not the case, that address of complainant is not known and there is no possibility to recover the balance loan amount. Admittedly there is FD of Rs.2,000/- with Opposite party Bank. Further every month Opposite party Bank use to deduct some amount from the salary (subsistence allowance) towards the loan. In spite of it what made the Opposite party to dis-honour the cheque and exercise the right of lien without knowing the exact loan amount due, when the cheque was received by the Opposite party Bank for realization. Another peculiar thing is that in the account extract produced by the Opposite party, it is mentioned Rs.6,804/- is withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 28.08.2008 towards suspension liability. The Opposite party has not produced any material to show the suspension liability. But the reason offered by the Opposite party in the version is that to safeguard the loan amount of Rs.3,785/-, the right of lien was exercised and therefore, the cheque was not honoured. Therefore, the defence is contrary to the document produced by the Opposite party and there is no justification at all to dis-honour the cheque and it proves the intentional act of the Opposite party to defame the complainant in the eye of known persons. On the basis of this dis-honour of the cheque, the drawee of the cheque could initiate criminal proceeding against the complainant. Therefore, the act of the Opposite party has created mental agony and suffering to the complainant and dis-honour of the cheque by the Opposite party Bank amounts to clear deficiency in service. 12. The complainant has sought for return of the pass book and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 13. In view of our findings and the reasons mentioned above, the deficiency in service is established and naturally the complainant has suffered mental agony and has lost faith in the eye of his known persons when his cheque was dis-honoured, though there was sufficient amount in his account at the relevant time and it is reasonable to award compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party to return the pass book of the complainant or duplicate pass book and further to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- within 6 weeks. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of November 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
