Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/410/2018

P.GURUDEV - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ICICI BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

K.GOVI GANESAN & OTHERS

25 Feb 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :07.08.2012

                                                                    Date of disposal            :25.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.410/2018

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 25^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

P.Gurudev,

Proprietor of M/s.Bell Co.,

Janatha Bazaar,

No.52, Ranganathan Street,

T,Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

                                                                                                     .. Complainant.                                                                               ..Vs..

 

1.The Manager,

M/s.ICICI Bank Limited,

Neyveli Township Branch,

Neyveli.

 

2.The Bank Manager,

M/s.ICICI Bank Limited,

Bazullah Road Branch,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

                                                                                            ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s.K.Govi Ganesan and another

Counsel for  opposite parties                    : M/s.Sai Krishnan Asociates

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.7,234/- towards cheque amount and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony  with cost of this proceedings.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.229/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.410/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is carrying on business of books and stationeries. The complainant is maintaining a Current Account bearing Account No. 60260509351 with the 2^nd opposite party. On 18.07.2011 he deposited a cheque bearing No.026931 dated 08.07.2011 issued by State Bank of India. Neyveli Branch for Rs.7,234/- in his above said account with the 1^st opposite party  under the bonafide belief that the said cheque was en-cashed and the amount was credited in his above said account. But to his shock and surprise the 1^st opposite party returned the cheque with a memo dated 15.03.2012 containing the reason “Account Number Wrong”. The complainant had written his account number correctly as 60260549351. But the opposite parties have stated that the Account Number is wrong. The 1^st opposite party has returned the cheque after 6 months period and therefore the validity of the cheque has also expired. Even assuming that he had written the account number wrongly, the opposite parties could have verified the Account Holder name and credited the amount. The 1^st opposite party acted in a negligent and deliberate manner. Due to their above said mistake he has suffered  a loss of Rs.7,234/- as he cannot represent the cheque since the validity of the cheque has also expired. The mental agony caused to him cannot be explained in words. The opposite parties are liable to be proceeded before this Hon’ble Forum for committing deficiency in service.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The complaint preferred by the complainant is not maintainable since the same is filed before this Hon’ble Forum with complete suppression facts and materials. The complainant is holding current account with the opposite party Bank branch situated at Bazullah Road. The complainant deposited the said cheque in a wrong account, which is not even in existence, how is it possible for the opposite party bank to identify the customer name and address to communicate that the reason for return of the said cheque. With great difficulty and after consuming lot of time the opposite party branch had followed up for the drawer details from SBI, later the contact details were collected and the cheque along with the chalan copy was returned to the customer address on 15.03.2012 vide professional couriers booking slip No.NEY1240765. Therefore the complainant cannot allege the opposite party bank for deficiency of service for not communicating the return memo.  The complainant is misleading this Hon;ble Forum and wasting the valuable time of this Forum for his wrongful gain.  The alleged claim of mental agony and untold hardship suffered as claimed by the complainant is/are not having any legal sanctity. The complainant had initiated proceedings before this Hon’ble Forum without adducing proper evidence by citing one reason or other and deficiency in service cannot have legal sanctity. Hence there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

 

03. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

 

2.Whether  the opposite parties is liable to pay cheque amount of Rs.7,234/-  

    the complainant?

 

3. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled?

04. POINT NO. 1 & 2

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant is having Current Account No.6026050493521with 2^nd opposite party that on18.07.2011 the complainant deposited a cheque for Rs.7,234/- in his current account under the bonafide relief  the cheque amount will be credited in his account. But the cheque was returned with a memo dated 15.03.2012 on the reason ‘Account Number Wrong’, but the complainant had written the correct account number. Therefore the complainant  suffered loss of Rs.7,234/- and act the opposite parties caused mental agony to the complainant.

          05. The opposite parties contended  the complainant is having current account with the 2^nd opposite party branch and complainant deposited the cheque in wrong account which is not even in existence and therefore the opposite parties  identify the customer named and address  with grate difficulties and return the cheque  along  with challen copy on 15.03.2012 to the customer address. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          06. The complainant  B.Gurudev proprietor M/s Bell Company, T.Nagar Chennai -17. The complainant is maintaining a current account No.60260504931 to the 2^nd opposite party. Ex.A6 is the copy of statement of account issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant. The statement of account contains the account number of the complainant as current No.602605049351. NLC Limited (Central Establishment) issued a cheque dated 08.07.2011 in favour of the complainant for Rs.7,234/-. Ex.A1 is the copy of the cheque dated 08.07.2011. 

          07. The complainant alleged that he deposited the above cheque in his current account on 18.07.2011. But the complainant has not filed any document or counter foil to show that he deposited the cheque on 18.07.2011 in his current account. On the other hand the 1^st opposite party  return the cheque by saying account number wrong. Ex.A2 is the copy of cheque return memo dated 15.03.2012.  The complainant in his complaint para 5 written the account number as 60260549351 and stated it is his correct number. But, actually the correct number is 602605049351. The complainant  omitted to mention  zero(0)  between  number 5 & 4 . Therefore, the complainant might have written the wrong account number in the chellan.

          08. The opposite parties clearly stated that the complainant had written wrong account number which is not in existence and thereafter with great  difficulties   collected the details of the customer and returned the cheque on 15.03.2012. The opposite parties have stated the reasons for delay in returning the cheque to the complainant.  The delay is due to the mistake committed by the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          09. The cheque issued by NLC limited (Central Establishment) in favour of the complainant  for Rs.7,234/-  was not encashed by the complainant and returned. Therefore the complainant can return the cheque to the NLC Limited and can get new cheque. Therefore, the question of paying the cheque amount by the opposite parties does not arise. Further, the complainant is doing business of books stationary for commercial purpose and maintaining current account with  the 2^nd opposite party. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2 (d) Consumer Protection Act 1986. Under these circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the opposite parties are not  liable to pay the cheque amount of Rs.7,234/- and the complainant is not entitled for compensation and cost.

10. POINT NO :3

          Since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.    

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 25^th  day of February 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.07.2011                   Cheque

Ex.A2 dated 15.03.2012                   Returned Memo from 1^st opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 09.04.2012                   Legal Notice issued to opposite parties

Ex.A4 dated 18.04.2012                   Acknowledgement card of the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement card of the 2^nd opposite party

Ex,A6 dated NIL                     Bank statement of the complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

                                                … NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT