Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/188/2016

P.Subramanian - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Indian Bank, Rep by its AGM - Opp.Party(s)

G.Rajkumari

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 17.06.2016

                                                                          Date of Order : 15.04.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.188/2016

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL 2019

                                 

1. P. Subramanian,

S/o. Mr. S.A. Pichu Iyer,

Old No.17/1, New No.35, “Guru Prasath”,

Krupa Sankari Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.  

 

2. Mrs. K. Swarnagowri,

W/o. Mr. P. Subramanian,

Old No.17/1, New No.35, “Guru Prasath”,

Krupa Sankari Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.                                                      .. Complainants.                                                   

 

                                                                                             ..Versus..

 

1. Indian Bank,

Rep. by its Assistant General Manager,

No.76/61, Arya Gouda Road,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.

 

2. Indian Bank,

Rep. by its Chief Manager,

No.1, Old Agraharam,

Veeravanallur Branch,

Tirunelveli District – 627 426.

 

3. Indian Bank,

Rep. by its Manager,

Ramapuram Branch,

Chennai – 600 089.

 

4. The Chairman / M. D.,

Indian Bank,

Corporate Office,

No.254-260, Avai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                               ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainants                : Mrs. G. Rajkumari

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 4 : M/s. M.L. Sripathi

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pray to pay a  sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the complaint to till the date of realization towards liquidated damages to the complainants with cost.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainants submit that 1^st complainant is a retired Regional Manager, Indian Bank, Tirunelvei and drawing pension through Indian Bank, West Mambalam Branch from 01.06.1992.  The 2^nd complainant is the wife of the 1^st complainant and both are the Senior Citizens.  The complainants and the family members holding fixed deposits in the esteemed Indian Bank nearly around Rs.65,00,000/-.  The complainants 1 & 2 are having an either or survivor Savings Bank Account No.545371566 with Indian Bank, Veeravanallur Branch.  The opposite parties had issued cheque book for the same account. The 1^st complainant issued a cheque No.073627 dated:16.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,650/- to transfer the same in favour of one Mr. P. Esaki Sundaram who is holding a Savings Bank Account No.545365473 with the same Indian Bank, Veeravanallur Branch.   The 1^st complainant presented the above impugned cheque No.073627 only on 18.09.2014 with the 1^st opposite party for due transfer of Rs.2,650/- to the beneficiary.  The complainants submit that the 1^st opposite party declined to pass the cheque and made the 1^st complainant to run pillar to post with the allegation that ‘drawer’s signature not scanned’. Immediately, the complainant made an alternative step to mail transfer of Rs.2,650/- vide challan dated:18.09.2014 through the 1^st opposite party.  But no counterfoil has been filed.  The 1^st complainant also requested the 1^st opposite party to return the cheque No.073627 with a cheque return memo.   But the 1^st opposite party refused to return the cheque with due memo for return.  The 1^st complainant states that already the 1^st complainant has encashed the following cheques drawn on various dates for various amounts were duly honoured by the officers of the opposite party bank:

Sl. No.	Cheque No. I.B., Veeravanallur	Date of Cheque	Amount in Rs.	Details of payment at West Mambalam	Cheque passed by staff and their present place of work	Date of payment
1.	73621	09.07.2008	3000	Cash paid to P.Subramanian	S. Bamini Malleeswaram	09.07.2008
2.	73623	21.07.2011	7000	Cash paid to P.Subramanian	C. Subbiah, Retired	21.07.2011
3.	73624	03.01.2013	90000	Deposits	C. Mytheryi, Corporate Office	13.01.2013
4.	73625	12.03.2013	22000	I.T. Advance Tax	J. Jayachandran, West Mambalam Branch	12.03.2013
5.	73626	01.06.2013	26000	Cash paid to P.Subramanian	B. Raguraman, Corporate Office	01.06.2013

 

2.     The complainants state that the 2^nd complainant has also requested to return the cheque No.073627 dated:22.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,650/- by way of speed post to the 1^st opposite party marking copy to the 2^nd opposite party.  Due e-mail dated:22.09.2014 also sent to both the opposite parties 1 & 2 on the same day.  The 1^st opposite party returned the cheque by letter dated:13.10.2014 to the 2^nd complainant. On 17.10.2014, a letter with returned cheque was received without the return memo.  The 1^st complainant states that the opposite parties wantonly and deliberately has not produced the cheque return register.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 28.11.2014 in detail claiming compensation. On 09.12.2014, the opposite parties 1 & 2 sent reply notice dated:09.12.2014 with untenable allegations which was received only on 16.12.2014.   The complainants submit that as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines clause “the opposite parties shall return the bounced cheque immediately” to the complainant.  The complainants submit that even after repeated requests, the opposite parties has not provided the CCTV footage dated:18.09.2014. The complainants submit that the 2^nd complainant presented a cheque No.73629 dated:05.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.2,000/- at 3^rd opposite party, Ramapuram Branch was also returned for the reason ‘drawers’ signature incomplete /required’ (illiterate left thumb impression).  The complainants submit that opposite parties made the wanton, deliberate and wrongful return of the cheques and making humiliation as the 2^nd complainant is an illiterate caused great mental agony, hardship resulting liquidated damages.   The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by  1^st opposite party is adopted by the 4^th opposite party is as follows:-

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant was a retired Regional Manager of Indian bank, Tirunelveli was holding Savings Bank Account in Indian Bank, Veeravanallur Branch, the 2^nd opposite party and was residing in West Mambalam and was operating his Savings Bank Account from the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party states that the 1^st complainant presented the cheque No.073627 dated:16.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,650/- on 18.09.2014  for due transfer to one Mr. P. Essaki Sundaram who is also having Savings Bank Account, Indian Bank.  The 1^st complainant was informed that his scanned signature was not available in computer system for verification.  The 1^st opposite party states that the 1^st complainant got annoyed and took back the cheque abusing the bank and system and attempted to make a commotion.   The 1^st opposite party states that on seeing the commotion, the Assistant Branch Manager approached the 1^st complainant and pacified him and made an endorsement as “Please pass” with dated:16.09.2014.  But admittedly, the cheque was presented only on 18.09.2014. 

4.     The 1^st opposite party states that eventhough the 1^st opposite party is ready to pass the cheque the 1^st complainant without presenting the cheque left the same in the table of the  Assistant Branch Manager and has not utilised the service of the bank will not amount to deficiency in service.  The 1^st opposite party states that the Assistant Branch Manager along with other officials personally visited the residence of the complainants on 30.09.2014 and 09.10.2014 and explained the situation requested apology.  But the 1^st complainant requested the 1^st opposite party through letters and notices for return of the cheque with return memo.  Hence, on 13.10.2014 the impugned cheque was returned to the complainants.  The 1^st opposite party states that the 1^st complainant’s requests by way of notices and information under RTI are duly complied.   The 1^st opposite party states that the 2^nd complainant has issued a cheque No.73629 dated:05.03.2015 was also returned for the reason that the ‘drawer signature incomplete / required (illiterate left thump impression) and requested for thumb impression.  The 1^st opposite party states that since the cheque was not duly presented by the 1^st complainant and he has left the cheque on the table of the Assistant Branch Manager and the same was sent to him at his request by post which was duly acknowledged by the 1^st complainant and there is no negligence / deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.      The brief averments in the written version filed by  2^nd opposite party is adopted by the 4^th opposite party is as follows:-  

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 2^nd opposite party submits that there is no specific allegations against them in the complaint and on perusal of the list of documents, it is seen that when a cheque in dispute was presented with the 1^st opposite party the transfer transaction could not be carried out by the counter staff of the 1^st opposite party on the day of presentation since the scanned signature of the 1^st complainant was not available in the system for immediate verification.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the 1^st complainant who was then the Regional Manager of Indian  Bank, Tirunelveli held Savings Bank Account with the 2^nd opposite party from the year 02.03.2007 and after his retirement and after the introduction of Core Banking System, the 1^st complainant was operating his account from other Branches other than the home branch.  The 2^nd opposite party states that the usual practice is that the Bank will periodically update the specimen signatures of the customers who have regular transaction in the Branch and since the SB Account of the 1^st opposite party was very old account and the 1^st opposite party was operating the same from other Branches after his retirement, the Bank was not able to obtain and update his specimen signatures.  When the issue pertaining to the non-availability of the scanned signature was brought to the notice by the 1^st opposite party (West Mambalam Branch), immediately with the help of the 1^st opposite party, the scanned signature of the 1^st complainant was updated by the 2^nd opposite party on 27.09.2014 and hence there is no negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party since the 2^nd opposite party has uploaded the scanned signature immediately when the same was brought to their notice.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that the 1^st complainant has issued a legal notice dated:28.11.2014 and in the said legal notice, there was no averment or grievance as against the 2^nd opposite party and hence, the same was not replied.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence, the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

6.      The brief averments in the written version filed by  3^rd opposite party is adopted by the 4^th opposite party is as follows:-

The 3^rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 3^rd opposite party states that the 2^nd complainant has issued a cheque dated:05.03.2015 bearing No.073629 drawn on Indian Bank, Veeravanallur Branch in favour of Mr. P.S. Murthy and when the same was presented, there was discrepancy in the signature of the 2^nd complainant and hence the 3^rd opposite party has returned the same to Mr. P.S. Murthy with an endorsement, “Drawer Signature incomplete/ differs” by return memo dated:05.03.2015.  The 3^rd opposite party states that there is no negligence, deficiency in service on their part.  Since, there was a discrepancy in the signature, the 3^rd opposite party has returned the same along with the return memo which is the usual practice of the Bank.   Therefore, there is no negligence, deficiency in service on the side of the part of the 3^rd opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainants have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.   Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.   Proof affidavit of the 3^rd opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 3^rd opposite party.   Proof affidavit of the 4^th opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B3 to Ex.B6 are marked on the side of the 4^th opposite party.

8.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for liquated damages, mental agony and deficiency in service with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with cost as prayed for?

9.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard their respective Counsels also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents. The complainants pleaded and contended that 1^st complainant is a retired Regional Manager, Indian Bank, Tirunelvei and drawing pension through Indian Bank, West Mambalam Branch from 01.06.1992.  The 2^nd complainant is the wife of the 1^st complainant and both are the Senior Citizens.  The complainants and his family members were holding fixed deposits in the esteemed Indian Bank nearly around Rs.65,00,000/-.  The complainants 1 & 2 are having an either or survivor Savings Bank Account No.545371566 with Indian Bank, Veeravanallur Branch.  The opposite parties had issued cheque book for the same account. The 1^st complainant issued a cheque No.073627 dated:16.09.2014 as per Ex.A1 for a sum of Rs.2,650/- to transfer the same in favour of one Mr. P. Esaki Sundaram who is holding a Savings Bank Account No.545365473 with the same Indian Bank, Veeravanallur Branch.   The 1^st complainant presented the above impugned cheque No.073627 only on 18.09.2014 with the 1^st opposite party for due transfer of Rs.2,650/- to the beneficiary.  Further the contention of the complainants is that the 1^st opposite party declined to pass the cheque and made the 1^st complainant to run pillar to post with the allegation that ‘drawer’s signature not scanned’.  Immediately, the complainants made an alternative step to mail transfer of Rs.2,650/- vide challan dated:18.09.2014 through the 1^st opposite party.  But no counterfoil has been filed.  The 1^st complainant also requested the 1^st opposite party to return the cheque No.073627 with a cheque return memo.   But the 1^st opposite party refused to return the cheque with due memo for return.  

10.    Further the contention of the 1^st complainant is that already the 1^st complainant has encashed the following cheques drawn on various dates for various amounts were duly honoured by the officers of the opposite party bank:

Sl. No.	Cheque No. I.B., Veeravanallur	Date of Cheque	Amount in Rs.	Details of payment at West Mambalam	Cheque passed by staff and their present place of work	Date of payment
1.	73621	09.07.2008	3000	Cash paid to P.Subramanian	S. Bamini Malleeswaram	09.07.2008
2.	73623	21.07.2011	7000	Cash paid to P.Subramanian	C. Subbiah, Retired	21.07.2011
3.	73624	03.01.2013	90000	Deposits	C. Mytheryi, Corporate Office	13.01.2013
4.	73625	12.03.2013	22000	I.T. Advance Tax	J. Jayachandran, West Mambalam Branch	12.03.2013
5.	73626	01.06.2013	26000	Cash paid to P.Subramanian	B. Raguraman, Corporate Office	01.06.2013

 

Further the contention of the complainants is that the 2^nd complainant has also requested to return the cheque No.073627 dated:22.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,650/- by way of speed post to the 1^st opposite party marking copy to the 2^nd opposite party.  Due e-mail dated:22.09.2014 also sent to both opposite parties 1 & 2 on the same day as per Ex.A8.  The opposite parties has not responded properly within the prescribed time as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines.  The 1^st opposite party returned the cheque by letter dated:13.10.2014 as per Ex.A2 to the 2^nd complainant. On 17.10.2014, Ex.A2 was received on without the return memo prescribed by the bank proves the deficiency in service.  In the returned cheque No.073627, the 1^st opposite party made an initial stating that “Please pass” with date as 16.09.2014.  But the impugned cheque was presented for transfer of amount only on 18.09.2014 proves the deficiency in service apparently. 

11.    Further the contention of the 1^st complainant is that the opposite parties wantonly and deliberately has not produced the cheque return register also which amounts to suppression of material facts of gross negligence.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 28.11.2014 in detail claiming compensation as per Ex.A3. On 09.12.2014, the opposite parties 1 & 2 sent reply notice dated:09.12.2014 as per Ex.A4 with untenable allegations which was received only on 16.12.2014.    None of the above allegations was proved by the opposite parties.  Further the contention of the complainants is that as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines clause “the opposite parties shall return the bounce cheque immediately” to the complainant.  In this case, the opposite parties returned the impugned cheque only on 13.10.2014 without the Cheque Return Memo. The opposite parties has not explained the reason for the inordinate delay against the Reserve Bank of India guidelines.  Further the contention of the complainants is that even after repeated requests, the opposite parties has not provided the CCTV footage dated:18.09.2014 proves the ulterior motive behind the officials of the opposite parties. Further the complainants contended that the 2^nd complainant presented a cheque No.73629 dated:05.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.2,000/- at 3^rd opposite party, Ramapuram Branch was also returned for the reason ‘drawers’ signature incomplete /required’ (illiterate left thumb impression) as per Ex.A6.  It is unfortunate to say that the 2^nd complainant is an illiterate because her husband, the 1^st complainant held the post of Regional Manager in Indian Bank, Tirunelveli which amounts  to humiliation.  Since admittedly the complainants 1 & 2 are holding joint accounts with either or survivor option.  In this cheque transaction also, the opposite parties had miserably failed to produce Cheque Return Register before this Forum proves the suppression of material facts.   As per the Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India Rule 4 “No cheque book is entitled for the illiterate person”.  Further the contention of the complainants is that the wanton, deliberate and wrongful return of the cheques and making humiliation as the 2^nd complainant is an illiterate caused great mental agony, hardship resulting liquidated damages. The complainants are claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.

 12.   The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 4 would contend that the complainant was a retired Regional Manager of Indian bank, Tirunelveli was holding Savings Bank Account in Indian Bank, Veeravanallur Branch, the 2^nd opposite party and was residing in West Mambalam and was operating his Savings Bank Account from the 1^st opposite party. Admittedly, the 1^st complainant presented the cheque No.073627 dated:16.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,650/- on 18.09.2014  for due transfer to one Mr. P. Essaki Sundaram who is also having Savings Bank Account, Indian Bank.  The 1^st complainant was informed that his scanned signature was not available in computer system for verification.  But the opposite parties has not produced any iota of evidence to prove the said allegation of non-availability of scanned signature in the computer.  On the other hand, the opposite parties cleared the following cheques No.073627 dated:16.09.2014 for Rs.2,650/- and cheque No.073629 dated:05.03.2015 for Rs.2,000/- were cleared without any complaint.    Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 4 is that the 1^st complainant got annoyed and took back the cheque abusing the bank and system and attempted to make a commotion; is not acceptable for a single moment without any iota of evidence.   

12.    Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 4 is that on seeing the commotion, the Assistant Branch Manager approached the 1^st complainant and pacified him and made an endorsement as “Please pass” with dated:16.09.2014.  But admittedly, the cheque was presented only on 18.09.2014.  On the other hand, evenafter making endorsement as “Please pass” what caused the 1^st opposite party to comply passing the cheque and transfer the amount also has not been explained in this case proves the deficiency as well as suppression of facts etc.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 4 is that eventhough the 1^st opposite party is ready to pass the cheque the 1^st complainant without presenting the cheque left the same in the table of the  Assistant Branch Manager and has not utilised the service of the bank will not amount to deficiency in service; is not acceptable because, after presenting a cheque on 18.09.2014, without any return memo it is not at all possible to have the cheque by the customer.   Equally, the customer cannot leave the cheque on the table of the opposite party evenafter making endorsement as “Please pass” which amounts to deficiency in service and negligence.  

13.    Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 4 is that the Assistant Branch Manager along with other officials personally visited the residence of the complainants on 30.09.2014 and 09.10.2014 and explained the situation requested apology.  But the 1^st complainant requested the 1^st opposite party through letters and notices for return of the cheque with return memo.  Hence, on 13.10.2014 the impugned cheque was returned to the complainants as per Ex.A1.  But as per the Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, it will be returned within 24 hours.  On the other hand, what made the opposite parties not to return the cheque with return memo within a reasonable time and why the impugned cheque was returned after 25 days also was not explained by the opposite parties proves the negligence and deficiency in service.  Further the contention of opposite parties 1 to 4 is that the 1^st complainant’s requests by way of notices and information under RTI are duly complied.   But miserably failed to produce the CCTV footage before this Forum proves the deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 4 is that the 2^nd complainant has issued a cheque No.73629 dated:05.03.2015 was also returned for the reason that the ‘drawer signature incomplete / required (illiterate left thump impression) and requested for thumb impression knowing fully well which was required only for the illiterates admitting that the 2^nd complainant is the Joint Account Holder of the 1^st complainant with either or survivor option.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 4 deliberately committed the deficiency in service.  Hence, the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainants.  

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 15^th day of April 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	16.09.2014	Copy of cheque No.73627 for Rs.2,650/-
Ex.A2	13.10.2014	Copy of letter with returned cheque
Ex.A3	28.11.2014	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A4	09.12.2014	Copy of reply notice
Ex.A5	05.03.2015	Copy of cheque bearing No.73629
Ex.A6	05.03.2015	Copy of return cheque with Memo
Ex.A7	22.09.2014	Copy of letter from the 1st complainant to 2nd opposite party
Ex.A8	22.09.2014	Copy of e-mail from the 1st complainant to 2nd opposite party Register letter to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A9		Copy of query and reply – opposite party to complainant

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1	14.11.2015	Copy of letter issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainants
Ex.B2		Copy of returned cover

 

3^RD OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

4^TH OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B3	10.10.2011	Copy of Application made by the complainants under RTI Act
Ex.B4	23.10.2015	Copy of letter issued by the 4th opposite party to the opposite parties 1 & 2 seeking information for the application received by the complainants
Ex.B5	13.11.2015	Copy of reply letter given by the 4th opposite party to the complainants
Ex.B6	13.11.2015	Copy of Annexure to the letter given by the 4th opposite party to the complainants replying the queries made by the complainants under RTI Act

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT