Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/27/2022

Mr.K.Janakiram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.The Chief Manager,Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.J.Rajkumar

28 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

Complaint presented on :10.03.2022 Date of disposal            :28.08.2023

                                                                                  

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. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                                      THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.27/2022

 

                  DATED MONDAY THE 28^th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

K.Janakiram,

S/o.D.Kannayiram,

No.5/3, Adishesh Nagar, Third Street,

Perambur Barracks,

Chennai-600 012.                                                                    …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.M/s.The Chief Manager,

Canara Bank (Formerly Syndicate Bank)

Peravallur Branch,

Balaram Street, T.V.K. nagar,

Chennai-600 082.

 

2. M/s.The Regional Manger,

Canara Bank (Formerly Syndicate Bank)

Regional Office, Armenian Street,

Chennai-600 001.

                                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant                       : M/s.J.Raj Kumar,

Counsel for opposite parties                    : M/s.K.A.Mahendra Kumar & A.Senthil

                                                                Kumar

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,   :PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10000000/- to the complainant towards the compensation for the mental agony caused due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice disrepute, discredit, loss of faith and credibility among the friends of the complainant and costs.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submits that complainant is having an SB Account in Canara Bank (Formerly Syndicate Bank) and operating the same for the past 25 years whereas the complainant, had issued a cheque bearing No.322953 dated 17.12.2021 drawn on Canara Bank  to one Shri.P WAJID who is a friend and well wisher of complainant for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to meet emergency financial requirement for the treatment of his sickly mother. The complainant states that the drawer viz., P.WAJID had presented the cheque bearing No.322953 dt 17.12.2021 with his banker M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd, Perambur Branch, on 17.12.2021 and same was returned with an endorsement "ALTERATION REQUIRE DRAWER AUNTHENTICATION" which means that the cheque leaf issued by me is with error /deficiency. Whereas it is not so as the cheque presented by me was in order and Canara Bank had erroneously denied payment to the cheque. The banker had also imposed a penalty and debited a sum of Rs.590/- from the complainant's SB Account. The complainant states that the denial of payment of amount of Rs.50,000/- to the drawe had brought disreputation, discredit, denigration, loss of faith etc., from the complainants friend, well wisher and within his society. The above has caused mental agony with consequential medical complication to the complainant. The complainant had represented by sending e-mail to the bankers requesting for remedial action but the bank authorities have given scant regard to the representation. The complainant and he was made to run pillar to post The complainant after much persuasion and escalating the matter to the higher authorities the amount recovered as penalty of Rs.590/- was reversed. This indicates sheer lethargy, negligence on the part of bank authorities towards the customer's Rights and Safety of his money. The complainant states that he had undergone mental agony, disreputation, discredit, loss of faith and credibility among his friends, well wisher and the society and hence the bank authorities are liable for the lethargy and negligence perpetuated on the complainant. The complainant is a abiding citizen having good reputation in the society also  this kind of denigration has caused irreparable loss to the complainant. The complainant states that the bank authorites viz., Canara bank is liable to pay compensation for their negligence, lethargy and loss caused to the complainant.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party denies all the allegations and averments made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  The complaint filed by the complainants was false, frivolous and vexatious and is as such liable to be dismissed. The 1^st opposite Party submit that the Opposite parties herein admit that the Cheque bearing No. 322953 dated 17.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, given by the Complainant had been dishonored by the Opposite party bank on the ground that Alteration Requires Drawer Authentication. Further the Clearance of the Cheques are not done at the Branch, on receipt of the cheque in the branch the same will be scanned and sent to the central clearance service section for the clearance of cheques. Even if there is some discrepancy in the cheque ie in respect of some correction or overwriting or some variation in the signature or some ink dot in the cheque than the cheque will returned on the ground of technical error found in the Cheques. Further Reserve Bank of India had also issued guidelines that if cheque payment is Rs.50,000/- or more than the customer who had issued the cheque had to intimate the bank about the issuance of cheque by him and for its clearance even if there is no intimation the cheques will be returned on technical grounds. The Opposite Parties states that in the aforesaid manner the cheque issued by the Complainant has been returned on the ground of Alteration Requires Drawer Authentication. Hence the opposite parties have not done anything negligently to return the cheque. Immediately when the complainant had raised the issue before the first opposite party, who had informed the complainant that the cheque has been returned on technical reason and he had advised the complainant to represent the Cheque and further the amount debited for return of cheque has been reverted back to the complainant's SB account on 6.1.2022. The Opposite parties denies the allegation that the bank had erroneously denied the payment, the bank has not done anything erroneously or negligently in return of the complainant's cheque. Further when the complainant has accepted the reversal of debited amount for the return of cheque and subsequently making a false claim that he has lost mental agony is only to justification for filing this complaint in turn to extract some amount from the bank as compensation. The complainant's claim of Rs.1,00,00,000/- has explicitly exposed the attitude of the complainant is to extract amount from the opposite parties. The Opposite party denies the allegation that there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In reality the swift action done by the opposite parties in the issue raised by the complainant is the testimony for the cordial relationship exist between the complainant and the opposite party till date in the banking service. Hence there is no deficiency of service nor any untrade practice on part of the opposite parties.

 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite parties 1 & 2 as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the

    complaint.  If, so to what extent?

 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to A4 are marked on their side and written arguments.  The opposite parties filed written version and no documents are marked on the opposite party side.

4. POINT NO :1:-

          The fact that the complainant was having an SB account with the opposite party bank for several years and issue of chque by the complainant bearing no.322953 dated 17.12.2021 to his friend P.Wajid for a sum of Rs.50000/- and further fact that the cheque was presented with HDFC bank perambur on the same date which was returned  with an endorsement alteration require drawer authentication and for which the banker has imposed a penalty and debited a sum of Rs.590/- from the complainant’s SB account is not is dispute between the parties but according to the complainant there was no error or mistake in the cheque issued by him and due to the return of the cheque wrongly by the opposite party had brought disrespect and spoiled his reputation among his friends and well wishers in the society and thereby he was put to hardship and mental agony and therefore claimed compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

          5. But in the written version was filed by the 1^st opposite party adopted by 2^nd opposite party it was contended that the cheque was sent to the central clearance service section and even if there is any small discrepancy like over writing some variation in the signature or sum ink dot in the cheque it will be returned on the ground of technical error and further contended that in the above said manner the cheque was returned requiring drawer authentication and when the same was informed by the complainant he was advised to represent the cheque and also the penalty amount which was debited for return of cheque was reverted back to his SB account on 06.01.2022 and having accepted the reversal of debited amount now the complaint is making false claim to extract money from the opposite parties and denied deficiency in service.

          6. Ex.A1 is the cheque issued by the complainant on 17.12.2021 in favour of one P.Wajid for Rs.50000/- and it is found from Ex.A2 the same was returned when the same was presented for collection before HDFC bank with a return endorsement alteration require drawer authentication on 20.12.2021.  Under Ex.A3 email on 30.12.2021 the complainant sent complaint regarding the same to the opposite parties and requested to reverse the penalty amount debited from his account and it is found from Ex.A4 that on 06.01.2022 the bank replied by recrediting the debited amount to his account.  Though the complainant contended that there is no correction or mistake found in Ex.A1 cheque but the opposite parties contended that the cheque will be scanned and it will be sent to central clearing section of the bank and even if there is any small correction or dot or overwriting or variation in signature it will be returned requiring authentication by the drawer and further contended that all that process were not done manually but by system and hence denied that the cheque was returned by opposite parties wantonly and further admittedly the cheque was returned on 20.12.2021 and Rs.590/- was deducted as penalty on that date for return of cheque which was recredited immediately upon the representation of the complainant on 06.01.2022 in about 15 days and even for the said delay the opposite parties contended that it was due to the intervening holidays during the Christmas period which is found to be a valid reason for the delay in recrediting the amount which cannot be alleged as deficiency in service further the complainant has not filed any evidence to prove that his reputation and image was spoiled among his friends and well wishers in the society due to return of cheque by the opposite party and there is no proof to show that the complainant was put to loss and hardship and mental agony due to the return of cheque by the opposite parties.  The complainant has not choosen to represent the cheque though he was advised for the opposite parties to do so but has hastly approached this commission by falsely alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and on perusal of entire records it is found that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. Point no.1 answered accordingly

7. Point no.2:-

Based on findings  given to Point No.1 there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and hence the complainant is not entitled for compensation as claimed in the complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result the Complaint is Dismissed No Cost

          Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28^th day of  August 2023.

 

MEMBER – I                      MEMBER – II                                     PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	17.12.2021	Cheque issued by complainant.
Ex.A2	20.12.2021	Return memo.
Ex.A3	30.12.2021	Email sent by complainant to bank authorities.
Ex.A4	06.01.2022	Reply given by the bank authorities.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

-NIL-

 

MEMBER – I                      MEMBER – II                                     PRESIDENT