DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.180/2012

M/s A M Sood HUF,

S/o Late Shri T S Sood,

R/o M-17, Green Park Main,

New Delhi-16                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

M/s Axis Bank

K-12, Green Park Main,

New Delhi-110016                                                         ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution    :         24.04.2012 

       Date of Order            :         18.01.2022

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant though the karta against the OP i.e. Axis Bank on account of deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of OP. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant had a savings bank account number 015010100020648 with the Green Park branch of the OP and the complainant always maintained appropriate balance in the said account. It is alleged by the complainant that he was very diligent about issuing cheques and issued cheques only when adequate balance was available. It is stated that on 03.04.2012, a cheque bearing no. 260336 was issued for a sum of Rs. 1,94,000/- by the complainant which was dishonored due to ‘insufficient funds’ by the OP. The copy of the cheque and return advice memo is annexed as Annexure C1 and C2 respectively. It is stated that the OP also levied a charge of Rs. 393.26 on the complainant, statement of the bank account is annexed as annexure C3. The acknowledgment from OP that an error had occurred due to a technical problem is annexure C4.

It is the case of the complainant that as per the statement the said account had sufficient funds for honoring the cheque issued by the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he has suffered irreversible loss of reputation and has also suffered financial loss on account of gross negligence of the OP and this act of the OP also made the complainant liable for prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In their reply, the OP has stated that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, mala fide and not maintainable. It is stated that the dishonoring of cheque was due to a system technical error on 03.04.2012 and the same was refunded on 20.04.2012 and therefore, the complaint does not disclose any cause for action. It is further stated that the cheque in dispute was issued in favour of ‘Birla Sun Life Dynamic Bond Fund’ for generating profits and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. The OP in their defense have filed judgement of T.N. SCDRC in SB of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Bagrecha passed in the year 2012 wherein it was held that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP where dishonouring of cheque took place due to the failure of machine. They have also relied on judgement of the Hon’ble NCDRC in Victory Electricals Ltd Vs IDBI Bank wherein issuance of letter of credit was held to be ‘commerical purpose’.

Both the parties have filed their evidence as well as written submissions. During the pendency of the present complaint, the karta of the complainant has died on 04.05.2014 leaving behind two other coparceners Dr. Seema Sood and Mr. Kanak Sood. An application in this regard has been filed praying for them to be impleaded as the legal heirs of the complainant. This prayer is being rejected as the HUF is the complainant and therefore on the death of the karta, the entity is not affected.

This Commission is not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the OP that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant as the cheque dishonoring charges were reversed to the account of complainant. As is evident from the facts and the material on record, the OP is deficient in providing service to the complainant.

The Hon’ble SCDRC Delhi in Ram Kanwar v. Punjab National Bank 1998 (1) CPR 646 that dishonour of cheque of a customer on the ground of insufficiency of funds when the customer had sufficient balance will obviously amount to ‘faulty’ and ‘imperfect’ manner of performance of service. This default is certainly covered in the definition of ‘deficiency’ in service under section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The matter is well-settled by the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Canara Bank vs Sanjoy Mitra 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1783 wherein ICICI Bank v. Sh. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal was quoted which was decided on 2.4.2014 in Revision Petition No. 532 of 2012, wherein it was held, “....the dishonouring of the Cheque No. 161139 for Rs. 1,15,627/- (One Lac fifteen thousand six hundred twenty-seven) was absolutely gross deficiency of service by the Petitioner's Bank, as the respondent was having sufficient funds in his account at that time”.

We are also not impressed by the argument put forward by the OP that by issuing a cheque for purchase of bonds, the complainant is outside the purview of the definition of ‘consumer’. It is not the case of the complainant that he was purchasing the bonds as a part of his business. The complainant was investing and therefore the complainant is a consumer in the present case. It is also noted that the OP had realized their mistake and reversed the dishonouring charges.

Therefore, the complaint is partially allowed and the OP is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on their part within a period of three months from the date of this order failing which they would be further liable to pay interest @7% per annum on the amount till the date of payment.

File be consigned to the record room after a copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.