Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

233/2014

R.Muthukumaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI, Rep by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

G.Anbumani

23 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  08.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY  THE 23^rd  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.233/2014

 

 

Dr.R.Muthukumaran,

25, Temple Street,

Alagappa Nagar,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

STATE BANK OF INDIA

Represented by its Branch Manager,

No.22, Taylors Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 11.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.G.Anbumani, Arun Anbumani &

                                                                    J.Dharmarajan

 

Counsel for  Opposite Party                    : M/s. P.D.Audikesavalu, K.Kumaran,

                                                                   Kavitha Audikesavalu and

                                                                   R.Vigneshwaran

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the debit amount from his account for dishonor of cheque and also the amount debit by  M/s. Kotak Securities Limited and compensation for mental agony and loss of repudiation with his trading company with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant  had two Bank Accounts with the opposite party, viz, a Savings Account and a Pension Account, since 2006. The Savings Account with SB A/C No.10094521746 had MOD (Multi Option Deposit) facility, i.e., it is a two-in-one Account wherein when the balance in the complainant’s SB A/c is more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the excess amount would automatically be converted into a Term/Fixed Deposit. Whenever a cheque is issued and funds are insufficient in the Savings Account, to that extent of insufficiency the Term/Fixed Deposit would break and the cheque would be honoured.

          2. The complainant had linked his Savings Account with his Trading Account maintained with M/s.Kotak Securities Limited and M/s. Govind Parikh Securities Private Limited. During the course of his trade, the complainant  had issued a cheque bearing No.859861 dated 08.11.2012 for  Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on the opposite party in favour of M/s. Kotak Securities Limited and the said cheque was returned/ dishonoured on 12.11.2012 for the reason ‘Insufficient Funds’.  The complainant  had over Rs.52 lakhs in his account on the date of dishonour of the above cheque. Due to the negligence and deficiency in service provided by the opposite party,  the complainant’s name and reputation with his trading Company suffered a huge dent. A sum of Rs.204/- was debited from his account as penalty by the opposite party.

          3. The complainant met the Manager of the opposite party and he informed that there was a problem in the software which did not break the fixed deposit whenever the cheque amount exceeded in the Saving Account. Further two more cheques dated 14.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- issued in favour of  M/s.Kotak Securities Limited  and another cheque dated 13.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.3,000/- issued in favour of M/s. Govind Parikh Securities Private Limited  was returned on 16.11.2012 for the reason of insufficient funds and a sum of Rs.204/- and Rs.102/- was  debited from the complainant  account respectively for the above said returned cheques. Inspite of that the complainant was having sufficient amount in his account, the opposite parties negligently returned the said cheques for want of insufficient fund’s shows that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service.

4. Further due to gross negligent act of the opposite party, the complainant was unnecessarily saddled with penalty of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- by M/s.Kotak Securities Limited for cheques dishonour. Due to this the complainant suffered loss of his reputation from M/s.Kotak Securities Limited. After  much persuasion and explanations, M/s. Kotak Securities Limited accepted the complaintant’s request that HDFC Bank was also added to the list of Banks for trading by the complainant.The complainant was constrained to close the MOD facility with the opposite party and transferred Rs.10/- lakhs from his account maintained with the opposite party to HDFC Bank. Thereafter a cheque for the dishonoured amounts was issued by the complainant  from HDFC Bank to  M/s. Kotak \Securities Limited to settle the outstanding amounts.  Therefore the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and hence the complainant  filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund the debit amount from his account for dishonor of cheque and also the amount debited by  M/s. Kotak Securities Limited and compensation for mental agony and loss of reputation with his trading company with cost of the complaint.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant  had been operating a Savings Bank account bearing No.10094521746 from the year  2012 in the Kilpauk Branch of the opposite party, which was linked to Multi-Option Deposit (MOD) account for earning Term Deposit interest on surplus money with its automatic break-up in case there was shortfall in the Savings Bank account to honour cheques drawn. The cheques issued by the customers of Kilpauk Branch of State Bank of India routed through clearing is processed by automated verifications made at the computer terminals of the said CCPC.

          6. The cheque bearing No.859861  issued by the complainant  from his aforesaid Savings Bnak account No.10094521746 had come for clearing on 12.11.2012. The said cheque had been returned for insufficient funds in that Savings Bank account to honour the same without breaking up the MOD, which had occurred due to a software error beyond the control of the opposite party and cannot be attributed as any deficiency in service.    

          7. The complainant  had requested the opposite party at its Kilpauk Branch to break-up and pay Rs.2,00,710/- on 12.11.2012 and to pay Rs.18,372/- and Rs.7,82,000/- on 15.11.2012, which was acceded, and the complainant  resultantly, had a balance of Rs.10,01,755.66 in his aforesaid Savings Bank account on 15.11.2012. The cheque bearing No.859863 for Rs.10,00,000/- issued by the complainant  to HDFC Bank was cleared on 15.11.2012 in that Savings Bank account using that available balance to honour it. The officials of the opposite party had explained to the complainant about the software error beyond their control which was the cause for not breaking the MOD to provide funds in the Savings Bank account of the complainant and necessary corrective measures had already been taken up and the rectification would be completed in due course, which was accepted by him.

          8. Subsequently, two other cheques bearing Nos.409835 and 859864 issued by the complainant from his aforesaid Saving Bank Account No.10094521746 had come for clearing at CPPC on 16.11.20012. The said cheques had also been returned for insufficient funds in that Savings Bank account to honour the same without breaking  up the MOD, which had occurred due to the same software error beyond the control of the opposite party and cannot be attributed as any deficiency in service. Even according to the complainant, he had settled the amounts due to the payees. The opposite party has been continuing to maintain a cordial relationship with the  complainant and has been extending its banking services to him in the best possible manner. Hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

10. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant had two bank account with the opposite parties viz., a Savings Bank Account with Savings Bank No.10094521746 had MOD (Multi Option Deposit)  facility and a pension account. Since 2005 and Ex.A1 is the proof for his Savings Bank Account linked with MOD is a two-in-one account wherein the balance in the Savings Bank Account is more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the excessive amount would automatically be converted into a fixed account in the name of the complainant and likewise if a cheque is issued more than the value of Rs.1,00,000/-, the system will automatically would break the FD and the cheque would be honoured.

          11. The complainant  used his Savings Bank Account for his trading with M/s.Kotak Securities Limited and M/s. Govind Parikh Security Private Limited.

          12. Admittedly the complainant had issued a cheque No.859861 dated 08.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on the opposite party in favour of the M/s.Kotak Securities Limited and the said cheque was returned on  12.11.2012 for the reason of insufficient fund and the complainant issued another cheque No.409835 dated 13.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-  in favour of M/s Govind Parikh Security Private Limited and another cheque No.859864 dated 14.11.2012 issued  in favour of M/s.Kotak Securities Limited for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and both the cheques were returned on 16.11.2012 for the reason insufficient funds. Ex.A8 is the Saving Bank Account statement of the complainant. As per the statement the complainant was having sufficient fund in the MOD to honour the aforesaid three cheques. However, inspite of sufficient fund available and agreed to utilize the MOD to pass those cheques and also returned those cheques for insufficient  fund proves the negligent act of the opposite party.  Further a sum of Rs.204/- another sum of Rs.204/- and a sum of Rs.102/- was debited from the complainant account in Ex.A8 is loss to the complainant due to the negligent act of the opposite party. Further, M/s.Kotak Securities Limited also sent Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 deposit note for return of cheques charging a sum of Rs.1000/-  for both the cheques. The above acts of the opposite party that he had returned all the three cheques inspite of sufficient fund available in the complainant account and further debited the charges from his account, due to the negligent act of the opposite party in returning the cheques,  proves that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

13. POINT NO:2

          Due to the negligent act and deficiency committed by the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to get refund for the debited amount of Rs.204/-+ 204/-+102/- = a total sum of Rs.510/- from the opposite party and also a sum of Rs.1,000/-  charged by the M/s.Kotak Securities Limited.

          14. The complainant was having the Savings Bank Account with MOD facility for trading with M/s.Kotak Securities Limited and M/s. Govind Parikh  Security Private Limited for his trading purpose and according to he complainant those cheques were issued to them only during the course of his trade and due to return of cheque his repudiation was affected and suffered with mental agony and further subsequently after much persuation M/s.Kotak Securities Limited accepted the complainant request and HDFC  Bank was also added  to the list of banks for trading by the complainant is accepted. In view of his repudiation was accepted and the complainant suffered with mental agony, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the same, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

 

 

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.510/- (Rupees five hundred and ten only) towards   the cheque return charges  and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only)  towards the charges paid to M/s.Kotak Securities Limited and  further also to pay a  sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) towards  compensation for his reputation and  mental agony to the complainant, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards a litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd  day of February 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 Dated  NIL	Features of Savings Bank Account linked with MOD – print out from the website of the opposite party
Ex.A2 dated 13.11.2012	Dishonoured cheque

 

Ex.A3 dated 16.11.2012                   Return Memo

 

Ex.A4 dated 16.11.2012                   Communication from the complainant to the

                                                    Banking Ombudsman

 

 

Ex.A5 dated 18.11.2012                   Communication from the complainant to the

                                                    Banking Ombudsman

 

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Debit Note issued by Kotak Securities Limited

 

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Debit Note issued by Kotak Securities Limited

 

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Bank Account Statement

 

Ex.A9 dated NIL                     Communication from Kotak Securities

                                                    Limited

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY :

                                                ….. NIL …..

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT