FA.No.549/2008 against CD.No.761/2007 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III,Hyderabad.

Between-

Syndicate Bank,

Rep. by its Chief Manager,

Picket Branch, Secunderabad.

…Appellant/O.P.No.1.

And

1.Vijay Singh, S/o.late Sri N.G.Singh,

   Aged about 55 years, Occ- Retd. Army Officer,

   R/o.146, Gunrock Enclave, Kharkhana,

   Secunderabad – 500 009.

…R.1/Complainant.

2.The Branch Manager, Picket Branch,

   Secunderabad.

…R.2/O.P.No.2.

Counsel for the Appellant            - Mr.K.Rama Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondents      -  Admn.Stage.

QUORUM- THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

-------

            Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the 1^st opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Hyderabad, dated 15.02.2008 in CD.No.761/2007 directing it to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a holder of Army Master Card bearing No.5425 5683 1118 3018 issued by Citi Bank in July, 1999.  He is having a Savings Bank Account No.303321/201/13283 with the appellant, 1^st opposite party Syndicate Bank.  The 2^nd opposite party is its Branch Office at Picket, Secunderabad.  He drew a cheque No.252579 on the 1^st opposite party for Rs.98,800/- and deposited with the Citi Bank towards the bill dated 25.10.2006.  In fact before issuing the cheque, he checked the balance in his savings account and deposited an amount of Rs.35,000/- to make it as Rs.1,00,148.08 ps.  When the cheque was presented on 18.11.2006, the 1^st opposite party dishonoured the said cheque on the ground that there was insufficient balance.  When the complainant informed the said fact, it did not give any reply.  This amounts to deficiency of service.  He has suffered mental agony besides financial restraints, etc.  He sought an amount of Rs.2,02,557/- towards penal charges, interest, compensation, etc.

3.         The opposite parties resisted the complaint, while admitting that the complainant had deposited Rs.35,000/- on 17.11.2006.  The averment that there was balance of Rs.1,00,148.08 ps was not correct.  Whenever a cheque is received for clearing, it will be debited first to the respective account by the computer and if the required balance is available, the entry will be authorized, and if the required amount is not available then the entry will be reversed.  This is the practice in the banking system.  The entries in the computer system gets purged while updating the pass book entries for more than six months with consequent reflection of last outstanding balance getting added to the current balance resulting in balance excess than what is actually available in the account.  The account holder cannot solely depend on pass book entries.  He is duty bound to bring the discrepancy to the notice of the bank.  It is not the case of the complainant that the cheque was cleared first and subsequently dishonoured.  There is a computer error in updating the pass book.  Even though the system shows that there is an excess credit balance of Rs.4,227.49 ps actually there is no credit balance of Rs.4,227.49 ps in the complainant’s account.  Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4.         In support of their case, both parties filed affidavits and written arguments.  They also filed documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8 and B. and B.2 respectively. 

5.         The District Forum after considering the fact that although an amount of Rs.35,000/- was deposited by the complainant in order to make the balance at Rs.1,00,148.08 ps, the Bank had negligent in dishonouring the cheque, allowed the complaint partly directing opposite party No.1, the appellant herein, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the 1^st opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective and in view of the technical failure on the part of the computer, the cheque was bounced.  The District Forum ought not to have awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- besides costs.

7.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the District Forum went wrong in holding that there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant?

8.         It is an admitted fact that the complainant is having a Savings Bank Account with the appellant.  An amount of Rs.1,00,148.08 ps was in the savings Bank Account by the date of issuance of cheque.  He issued a cheque for Rs.98,800/- on 25.10.2006.  It is also not in dispute that the cheque was bounced with an endorsement that there was insufficient funds.  Though the complainant had issued a registered notice as long back as on 18.11.2006, the amount was neither paid nor the same was credited into that account.  Therefore, the complainant came up with this complaint. 

9.         The appellant alleges that “owing to some technical problems in our system we have erroneously returned his cheque No.252579 for Rs.98,800/- towards credit card payment” and requested the Citi Bank to waive the penal charges.  Undoubtedly, the complainant after finding himself that adequate amount was there in the Savings Bank issued cheque.  If really there was  technical snag, it could have informed to the complainant and returned the cheque.  It did not respond to the notice.  As we have earlier pointed out, that despite his notice, the same was not credited nor the amount was paid.  It would undoubtedly a deficiency of service on its part.  It is write large on its face. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant is a retired Army Officer.  He must have felt humiliated and embarrassment when his cheque was bounced despite the fact that there was adequate amount in the Savings Bank Account.  It cannot be taken lightly.  He would be entitled to compensation towards mental agony, etc.  The bank cannot harass the customers by returning the cheque and then attribute it to its customers.  In fact no evidence was let in to show that there was technical snag.  It intend to get over by throwing blame on computer. For the sufferance caused by it the bank had to compensate.  Therefore, awarding of an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, cannot be said to be high or unreasonable.  We do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum. 

9.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.  However, no costs.                 

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER               MALE MEMBER

Dt-18.04.2008.

Vvr.