D.O.F. 29.07.2013

                                            D.O.O. 12.08.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. Roy Paul                     :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 12^th day of August,  2015.

C.C.No.216/2013

Manoj Kalyanji

Manoj Electricals                                                  :         Complainant

Station View

Kannur – 1

(Rep. by Adv. K. K. Balaram)

1.Senior Manager

   The Punjab National Bank

   Bank Road, Kannur

2.Zonal Manager

   The Punjab National Bank

   Zonal Office, Shatabdi Bhavan

   Bypass Road, Govindapuram                            :         Opposite Parties

   Kozhikode – 673 016

3. The Head Office

    Punjab National Bank

    7, Bhikaji Cama Place

    New Delhi – 110 607

(All rep. by Adv. P. Anil)

O R D E R

Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.,  Member

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant to get compensation from the opposite party under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows.  The complainant was a customer of the opposite party bank with cash credit limit of Rs9.5 lakhs.  On 21.12.2012 the complainant deposited cheque for Rs3,81,019 to be collected from his RD account, Thaliparamba.  When he enquired with the staff, the complainant was told that amount will be collected and deposited within two days.  Believing the words of staff the complainant issued a cheque dated 28.12.2012 for Rs23,000 to one of his customer.  The cheque when presented on the same day for encashment was not accepted for want of sufficient fund in the above account.  The cheque was bounced by the bank due to the insufficiency of funds and that incident happened as the opposite party did not sent the cheque deposited for collection in time.  This incident shows the deficiency in service from the part of bank due to which the complainant suffered a lot.  Hence this comlaint for compensation.

          After receiving complaint Forum sent notice to opposite party.  The opposite party appeared and filed their version.

          As per the version of opposite party the staff of opposite party never assured that collection of cheque will be done within two days.  According to them the opposite party was having good customer relationship with the complainant and they became aware of this incident only after receiving this complaint.  The complainant has issued cheque ensuring whether there is sufficient balance to honour the cheque.  It is a rule of the Bank that before drawing money as cash from cash credit account, the customer should convince the Banker about the genuineness of the purpose.  Here the complainant had issued a cheque to a stranger and the cheque of Rs23,000 which was issued to third parties must be crossed account payee and it has not been done in this case.  The opposite party has strictly followed the norms with regard to collection of outstation cheques as per the collection policy.  If the collection of outstation cheque is delayed beyond 14 days interest should be paid at the rate of SB interest and there was no such delay in this case.  So there was no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and the complaint may be dismissed.

          On the basis  of the above contention following issues were raised for consideration.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party?
2. If yes, what is the remedy?

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 the complainant and Ext.A1 to A4 are documents from the side of the complainant.

Issue No.1 :

          There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant was having a cash credit loan account in the bank of opposite party.

          As per Ext.A1 the cheque was deposited on 21.12.2015.  When the complainant was cross examined he had stated that bank had collected collection charge on 29.12.2008.  Here opposite party has not adduced any evidence.  In the cross examination complainant had stated a different story apart from the complaint.  He had stated as follows ….................................   In the re-examination the complainant stated that …..................................... Afer that in cross examination he had stated ….................... So these evidence show that complainant himself admits that there is no deficiency on the part of bank.  So as per the available evidence there is nothing before us to show that the bank had done deficiency in service. So this Forum finds the issue No.1 against the complainant and this complaint stands dismissed.

          Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2015.

                           Sd/-                     Sd/-               Sd/-

                       President               Member          Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Receipt dated 21.12.2010.

A2. Bounced cheque.

A3. A/c statement.

A4. Certificate dated 14.03.2013.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT