Date of Filing      : 29.03.2019

                                                                                                                  Date of Disposal: 25.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR. B.A., B.L.,                                                          ......MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com.                                                                      ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.24/2019

THIS ,MONDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JULY 2022

 

Mr.K.Veluchamy,

S/o.Late M.Karuppiah Thevar,

56, Thendral Nagar East, 

Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai -600 062.                                                        ……Complainant.

                                                                                 //Vs//

1.The General Manager NW-1

    State Bank of India,

    Local Head Office, Chennai -600 006.

 

2.Regional Manager,

    State Bank of India, RBO, Region-3, Chennai Zone -1,

   No.35, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai -600 001.

 

3.The Branch Manager,  State Bank of India,

    73C & 74C, M.T.H. Road,

    Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.                                            ..........Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                            :   Party in Person.

Counsel for the 1st opposite party                                                  :    exparte.

Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties                               :   Mr.Sushil kumar, Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 12.07.2022 in the presence of the complainant who appeared in person and Mr.Sushil Kumar counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in honouring a post-dated cheque along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and loss suffered and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, hardships and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant. 

Gist of the facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It is submitted that the complainant is an account holder of the 3rd opposite party Bank since 2005 vide account No.30023049742 with cheque facilities. Further the complainant issued a SBI cheque bearing No.263217 dated 09.06.2018 to the Standard Chartered Bank for an amount of Rs.INR 1,214.43/-.  The complainant received SMS at 07.07 am on 08.06.2018 stating “chq 263217 for INR 1,214.43 fvr SCBCARDS recd in clg wl be paid if found in order. Contact yr. branch by 12.30 pm today”.  Subsequently the cheque dated 09.06.2018 was honoured on 08.06.2018itself.  The complainant contended that when he informed the 3rd opposite party there was no response and therefore the complainant again complained with the Central Public Information Officer who is the 2nd opposite party herein on 14.06.2018 and one staff named Shanthi after certain enquires came forward to pay the instrument amount of INR 1214.43 for withdrawal of the complaint filed by the complainant, however the complainant refused for the same. The appellate authority/1st opposite party was approached by the complainant by way of an appeal on 13.08.2018 for which a reply was issued on 10.09.2018 stating that the 2nd opposite party had furnished the available and suitable information and no further intervention of the 1st opposite party is necessary.  Thus aggrieved alleging deficiency in service by the 3rd opposite party the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned below;

a)to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and loss suffered;

b)to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and tension;

c) to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

 

Defence of the opposite party:

The 1st opposite party inspite of sufficient notice and opportunities given did not appear and hence he was called absent and set ex-parte on 18.07.2019.  The 2nd and 3rd opposite party jointly filed a version denying the allegations made by the complainant.  It is submitted by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties that though it is true that the cheque bearing No. 263217 dated 09.06.2018 was issued to them, they  denied that it was passed on 08.06.2018 itself.  It is submitted by them that it is the banking practice that every cheque when sent for collection a message will be sent to the customer and only after 8 hours duration the cheque will get honoured or dishonoured.  Thus the customer will have an option to deny the cheque or honour the cheque.  The wording of the message is “chq 263217 for INR 1,214.43 fvr SCBCARDS recd in clg wl be paid if found in order. Contact yr. branch by 12.30 pm today if not isud by u”.  It is thus submitted that the customer had an option to stop the cheque payment or allow the cheque payment. It is further submitted that as 9th and 10 falls on 2nd week Saturday and Sunday, it is holidays for banks.  The complainant had issued a cheque for clearance wantonly and the same was honoured only after due intimation to the complainant. Also the allegation that one staff named Shanthi calling the complainant to withdrawal all the complaint is denied and the opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On the side of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties proof affidavit was filed but no documents were produced by them.

Point for consideration:

Whether the complainant is successful in proving the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in honouring a post-dated cheque prematurely and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point:

On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;

The SMS received by the complainant on 08.06.2018 at 07.07 am before clearance of the cheque was marked as Ex.A1;

The credit card statement dated 17.06.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;

The complaint letter made to the Central Public Information Officer, dated 14.06.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;

The reply notice issued  from the Central Public Information officer dated 17.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;

The letter issued to the Appellate Authority/1st opposite party herein by the complainant dated 13.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A5;

The copy of reply sent by the Appellate Authority dated 11.09.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;

The Statement of Account of the State Bank of India from 02.05.2018 to 01.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;

Heard the oral arguments adduced by the complainant/Party in person and also the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.  The complainant argued that whether the cheque issued dated 09.06.2018 would be considered to be “in order” on 08.06.2018 and whether the complainant has to approach the bank even if the cheque is in order on receiving SMS communication.  Thus he argued that clearing the cheque even before the date mentioned in the cheque is a sheer negligence on the part of the opposite party and sought for the complaint to be allowed with compensation and cost.

On the side of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties the learned counsel argued that the complaint itself is a vexatious one and denied that the cheque was not honoured on 08.06.2018 as alleged by the complainant.  It is further argued by him that the SMS will be sent to the customer and sufficient opportunities will be given to the customer for honour or to stop the cheque payment. As it was not a working day on 09th and 10th June 2018 the cheque dated 09.06.2018 was sent by the Standard Chartered Bank on 08.06.2018 for clearance and this opposite party had clear the cheque only after due intimation to the complainant. Thus contending that there is no deficiency in service on their part sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

We appreciated the arguments advanced by both the parties and also perused the documentary evidence produced by the complainant herein.  It is clearly seen that vide Ex.A7 that the cheque dated 09.06.2018 has been cleared on 08.06.2018 itself by the 3rd opposite party also the honouring of the cheque on 08.06.2018 was also not specifically denied by the opposite parties. The SMS sent on 08.06.2018 to the complainant is admitted by both the parties.  In such circumstances the issue raised by the complainant that whether a cheque dated 09.06.2018 would be considered “in order” on 08.06.2018 assumes significance.  It is to be noted the SMS in Ex.A1 had informed the complainant to contact the Branch Manager if the cheque is not issued by him.  When the cheque dated 09.06.2018 was issued only by the complainant there is no necessity for the complainant to approach the Branch Manager.  It is a normal practice that the cheque dated on public holidays or Sunday or Saturday the cheque should be paid the following working days. In these circumstances we hold that the complainant had successfully proved that the 3rd opposite party had committed negligence and deficiency in service in honouring the cheque dated 09.06.2018 on 08.06.2018 itself.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant we refrain ourselves from awarding a compensation of Rs.75,000/- as claimed by the complainant as we feel it is an exorbitant claim by the complainant as the amount involved is only Rs.1214.13/- and hence we order a normal compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the reason that the opposite parties are Public Sectors Undertakings and also award Rs.3000/- towards cost of this proceedings.  We answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable 

a) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

b) to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 25th day of July 2022.

 

     Sd-                                                            Sd-                                                         Sd-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER-I                                         PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 08.06.2018 SMS from SBI. Xerox

Ex.A2 17.06.2018 Credit card statement. Xerox

Ex.A3 14.06.2018 Copy of letter to CPIO. Xerox

Ex.A4 17.07.2018 Copy of reply from CPIO. Xerox

Ex.A5 13.08.2018 Copy of letter to Appellate authority. Xerox

Ex.A6 10.09.2018 Copy of reply from Appellate authority. Xerox

Ex.A7 .............. The Statement of Account of the State Bank of India from 02.05.2018 to 01.10.2018 Xerox

 

 

List of document filed by the opposite party:

 

Nil

      Sd-                                                       Sd-                                                            Sd- 

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                             PRESIDENT