BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Wednesday, the 6th day of May 2015
First Appeal No.6/2014
Ramalingam, S/o.Shanmugam
No.116, Eswaran Koil Street,
Pondicherry1 ………… Appellant
Vs.
State Bank of India, Pondicherry Branch
Rep. by its Assistant General Manager
Suffren Street, Pondicherry-1.
…………. Respondent
(Appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.83/2005, dated 02.05.2014)
Consumer Complaint No.83/2005
Ramalingam, S/o.Shanmugam
No.116, Eswaran Koil Street,
Pondicherry1 ………… Complainant
Vs.
State Bank of India, Pondicherry Branch
Rep. by its Assistant General Manager
Suffren Street, Pondicherry-1.
…………. Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
TMT.K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
FOR APPELLANT/APPELLANT.:
Tvl.A.N.D. Law Associates,
K.Palaniappan, R.Asvani Palaniappan,
Advocates.
FOR RESPONDENT/O.P..:
Thiru.M.Lakshminarasimhan,
Advocate.
O R D E R
(BY Tmt. K.K.RITHA, Member)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.83/2005 dated 02.05.2014.
2. The Complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (‘District Forum’ in short), Puducherry is the Appellant herein and the Opposite Party therein is the respondent.
3. The facts of the Appellant are as follows:
The Appellant states that he is running a hotel by name Jaya Inn and he is the sole proprietor of the concern. During the course of his business dealings a demand draft bearing no.936029 dated 13.09.2005 for a sum of Rs.965/- in the name of Jaya Inn was given by one of his customers drawn on the Respondent's Bank. It is an open demand draft which is negotiable across the counter. On 20.10.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. the Appellant visited the Respondent's Bank and tendered the said demand draft by disclosing his identity and making necessary endorsement on the reverse of the draft. But the Respondent refused to make payment without giving any reason and also in a discourteous manner. Thereafter he approached the Chief Manager and the Assistant General Manager of Respondent Bank and with a request to make payment. Without any proper reply and reason Respondent bank refused to make the payment. The Appellant was constrained to spend two hours in the bank due to the callous attitude of Respondent bank, which had caused him mental agony. Thus the Appellant issued a lawyer's notice calling upon the Respondent to pay the amount of Rs.965/- with interest at 18% per annum from 20.10.2005 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- as cost.
4. The Respondent denies all the allegations made by the Appellant. The Respondent stated that the demand draft of Rs.965/- was presented by a person describing himself as one Ramalingam. The Respondent's concerned staff immediately attended to him and asked for his identity and address. The Respondent denied that their staff ever behaved in a discourteous way. Whereas the Appellant angrily left the bank shouting by threatening to take legal action against the Respondent. The Respondent was ready to make payment for the said demand draft if only the Appellant had complied with the Banking practice and requirement needed to satisfy the concerned officials. Moreover, the Appellant is not a customer of the Respondent Bank and he had not paid any charges to it. As such the Appellant is not a consumer to the Respondent Bank. Thus, this complaint is not per-se maintainable under Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Respondent had filed additional reply version to highlight their stand and further, in its reply notice dated 01.11.2005 offered that it was ready to make payment for the said demand draft if only the Appellant furnished the required papers and particulars to show the correct identity and address and to the satisfaction of the concerned officials. Thus, the Respondent prays to dismiss the complaint which is vexatious and frivolous one.
5. The Appellant has filed documents Ex.C1 to C5 and on the Respondent's side, Ex.R1 has been filed. The Appellant has been examined as CW.1 and the Chief Manager of SBI has been examined as RW.1. The Respondent filed citations.
6. The case of the Appellant is that on 20.10.2005 at about 11 a.m. he visited the Respondent's Bank and tendered a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.965/- for making payment. After waiting for two hours in the queue for his turn the Respondent staff refused to make payment without giving any reason, eventhough the Appellant had shown his identity. The Appellant deposed that his identity i.e. Licence issued by Pondicherry Municipality, was shown to Respondent's Bank at the time of presenting the demand draft for payment. Also he is not an account holder of the Bank and he is not aware that whether the staff of the Bank knows his identity, address etc. There was no transaction between him and the Bank till that date.
7. The Respondent's stand is that their staff attended the Appellant in a polite way and required him to show his identity and address to make payment. Instead of following the said procedure, the Appellant shouted at him and left the Bank. The Respondent reiterated that it was always ready to make payment the said Demand Draft if only the required particulars are furnished to show the correct identity and address of the Appellant, since the concerned officials have no chance to know the Appellant in any manner. Moreover, the Appellant is not a customer of the Bank.
8. Section 10 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contemplates that " payment due course means payment in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in good faith and without negligence in any person in possession thereof under circumstances which do not afford a reasonable ground of following that he is not entitled to receive payment of the amount therein mentioned". The Respondent's side relied upon Section 131 (a) , 85(a) , 10, 9 and Section 58 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to these provisions the holder of the instrument is required to prove his identity in order to receive payment. The Reserve Bank guidelines as in Ex.R1, the Banks are bound by KYC (Know Your Customer) policy wherein identity of a customer is essential for any kind of Banking transaction.
9. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Appellant is not an account holder and he is a stranger to the Respondent's Bank. The Respondent in its version has stated that it was ready to make payment of the said Demand Draft, if the Appellant had furnished his correct identity and address. The Appellant deposed that he had shown the Licence issued by Pondicherry Municipality, Ex.C2 as his identity. Neither in the complaint nor in the legal notice dated 20.10.2005, Ex.C3 issued by the Appellant, had revealed that he had shown Licence issued by Pondicherry Municipality, Ex.C2 to the Respondent's staff while presenting the Demand Draft. According to the Respondent 'Know Your Customer' has been formulated by the Reserve Bank of India. The RW.1 deposed that on 20.10.2005 when the Appellant presented the Demand Draft Ex.C1, he had not produced any identification for the payment.
10. It is not proved that the Appellant while presenting the Demand Draft had shown Licence issued by Pondicherry Municipality, Ex.C2. Also the Appellant is not a regular customer to the Bank and he is a stranger to the Respondent's Bank. Hence we do not find any deficiency on the part of the Respondent for demanding the Appellant to produce his identity and address. Hence there is no merit in the Appeal and the Appeal is hereby dismissed
11. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in CC No.83/2005 dated 02.05.2014. We hereby confirm the order of the District Forum.
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2015
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
