BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 20/07/2010

Date of Order : 29/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 407/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The facts that induced the complainant to file this complaint are the following :

The complainant is aggrieved because a cheque presented by him in his bank for collection was returned since there was no branch for the bank on which the cheque was drawn, at that place. Still cheque return charges were debited from his account, when it was found that there was no branch functioning at that place. The complainant claims refund of the debited amount, compensation for hardships undergone and cost of the proceedings.

2. The facts are not denied by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties on whose behalf version has been filed. They justify the collection of return charges because at the relevant time, the 1^st opposite party was not a member of local clearing house. Therefore, they contend that what they have done is perfectly legal.

3. The 1^st opposite party appeared in person, but they did not file any version. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on his side. No oral evidence for the opposite parties. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked for them. Learned counsel appearing for parties were heard.

4. The short points that out standing for determination are the following :

1. Whether the 2^nd opposite party was justified in debiting the impugned charges?

2. What are the reliefs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- The simple facts unfolded by the complainant drives our attention to Ext A1 cheque worth Rs. 1,50,000/- issued by his brother which was drawn on the 1^st opposite party bank, Haripad branch. Being an S.B. Account holder of the 2^nd opposite party, he presented the cheque for collection. Unfortunately, the cheque was not cleared on the ground that the 1^st opposite party bank had no branch at Haripad. This will be bone out by Ext. A2 cheque return memorandum, where there is an endorsement stating “Branch not functioning Haripad”. Hence they contend that their act of returning the cheque was perfectly authorized by law and hence they have charged cheque return charges as per norms. They have produced Ext. B2 instruction circular specifying the rules for calculation of the said charges. In that background, they justify the levy of Rs. 800/- on that count.

6. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the version and argument notes, the opposite parties raise the contention that functioning of Haripad branch was not within their knowledge at that time, since it was not a member of the local clearing house. And they hold the view that, “unless a branch become a member of the local clearing house, the opening of a branch will not come within the knowledge of other banks and then only the instruments will get cleared.” This stand is obviously a departure from the stand made known in Ext. A2 memorandum stating that there was no branch as on 17-07-2008. Another curious thing that agitate our mind is how come the S.B.I., Haripad branch can issue cheque book to its customers if it was not a member of the clearing house. To crown it all, the 2^nd opposite party did not care to verify whether the branch of the bank whose name is printed on the cheque is really functioning at that place. All these questions lead us to the conclusion that eventhough cheque return charges can be legitimately claimed in cases where cheque is returned unpaid, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, 2^nd opposite party should have refrained from making such a demand from one of its valuable customer. The opposite parties have stated that they have charged Rs. 25/- as postal charges. There is no evidence to show that the cheque was in fact forwarded to Haripad. If that be the case, it goes against the stand that there was no branch functioning at that place at the relevant time.

7. In the totality of the back ground of circumstances, we think the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have been showing copy book approach to the issue before them rather than taking a pragmatic view of the whole situation. If the later approach had been followed, definitely we think they would have refrained from taking such an unreasonable stand. Therefore, in our view, it is only just and reasonable that they refund what has been charged without rendering any service in return.

8. The complainant has stated that he had gone to Haripad for collection of due amount which has caused him some hardship as well as mental distress. These inconvenience is really the fall out of the strict attitude of the bank officials only. Hence, he is eligible for some recompense. Also, he is entitled for reimbursement of the cost incurred for this litigation.

9. In conclusion, we allow the complaint as follows :

1. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund
   Rs. 800/- (Rupees eight hundred only) being the amount debited from his account.

2. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and hardship.

3. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of September 2011.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant’s Exhibits :-

Opposite party’s Exhibits :-

=========