BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 20^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

ORDER

SMT. SUMA ANILKUMAR, MEMBER

The complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, complainant seeking direction towards OP for the following reliefs:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.78,404/- to the complainants being the amount paid by the complainants towards the medical expenses for taking treatment as in-patient.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as damages, compensation and mental agony suffered by the complainants.
3. Award cost of the proceedings and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems necessary in the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

The complainant is a bona fide customer of the OP Bank since many years and is maintaining inter alia a/c XXXXX957545 with that Bank. As per normal banking transactions, the complainant had issued three crossed cheques from his a/c No. XXXXX957545 for liquidating the complainant’s loan outstanding with HDFC Bank, vide, (1) cheque No. 952115 dated. 22^nd –Mar-2022 for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only), (2) cheque No.952122 dated  22^nd – Mar -2022 for Rs.4,00,000/-  (Rupees Four Lakh Only), and (3) cheque No. 952121 dated 22^nd - Mar -2022 for Rs. 17,768/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty-eight Only).

3. The complainant had made sure that his a/c had sufficient balance in his a/c for honoring the said three cheques; but the respondent Bank honoured only the third cheque for Rs. 17,768/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty-eight only),and refused to honour the other two cheque for Rs. 14 Lakhs and returned them only with a remark, “88-Other Reasons” on 31^st March 2022, thereby indicating that these two cheques were not dishonored for the reason that there was ‘no balance,’ nor any other defects on the face of the cheque-slips. It was surprising why the respondents has picked and chose to dishonor only two of the complainant’s cheques for Rs.14 Lakhs only and the complainant had to face humiliations and a lot of pressure from the HDFC Bank, which had been in touch with the complainant for an explanation, and a veiled threat of cancellation of the deal.

4. That the above stated cheques were issued by way of full payment of the loan amount with HDFC, of Rs.14,17,768/-. The total loan amount was in fact, Rs. 18 Lakhs, HDFC had acknowledge the same on 22.03.3033, subject to realization of the said cheques. On receipt of the intimation that some of the cheques for Rs. 14,00,000/- were dishonoured, HDFC intimated on 08.04.2022, that Rs.14,00,000/- was still outstanding.  The complainant again issued the following cheques again, vide, (1) cheque No.952123 for s.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only), and (2) Cheque No.952124 for Rs. 4,05,722/- (Rupees Four Lakh Five thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty-two only); and both these cheques were again dishonoured.

5. After a lot of persuasion, the HDFC Bank agreed not to cancel the deal but charged the complainant incidental charges and interest on the outstanding amount only, if that did not happen, the complainant would have suffered financial difficulties and a huge loss.

6. The complainant first approaches the OP No.1 on 21.04.2022, complaining that those two cheques were dishonoured and requesting the Bank to intimate the reason why they had honoured one cheque only and rejected the other two cheques. OP clarified orally that the cheques were in order and a sufficient balance was available in the account, indicating that the cheques were wrongly dishonoured by your Bank. Your Bank was evading from giving any proper explanation about the remark, “88-Other Reasons” found on the return on the return slip. OP refused to give the reasons in writing.

7. When the complainant contacted the local branch, (AECS Layout, Bangalore), they wanted the complainant to update his KYC, and had activated “Positive pay” to limit of 15 lakhs. They requested to present fresh cheques. Accordingly, the complainant issued two fresh cheques for  an amount of 14 lakhs. Accordingly, the complainant issused fresh cheques on 08.04.2022, vide cheque No,952123 dated 8^th  - Apl -2022. For Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) and cheque No.952124 dated 8^th – Apl -2022 for Rs. 5,722/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Twenty-Two Only) thereafter the complainant wrote to OP 1, along with a copy of what the complainant had written to the OP 1, on 04.05.2022, expressing his dissatisfaction, agony, and frustration that the complainant faced due to their refusal to give the reasons as requested. The Complainant had intimated that their behavior would amount to deficiency in service.

8. Complainant continued to enquires from the OP Bank “Why his cheque were dishonoured, and why no satisfactory answer given?’’ In the meantime the HDFC Bank continued to pressure on the complainant, on several occasions, both orally and by writing to clear the dues; and the complainant had to pay an ad hoc amount of 23,000/- towards interest on the outstanding amount. At this point of time, the complainant felt that the OP Bank officers were deliberately avoiding making the payments and it was under these circumstances that the complainant decided to approach the ‘Ombudsman’ to hold an enquiry. The complainant’s complaint was registered formally, and the enquiry started on 27^th May 2022, vide the intimation sent to the complainant by the Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman, registered the complainant’s complaint and seems to have started an enquiry against the OP Bank, at the instance of the Deputy Ombudsman. As part of the enquiry, the complainant had responded to all the quires put to the complainant, by the Ombudsman. The response from the Ombudsman addressed to the complainant, would indicate the nature of the proceedings. In the meantime, the HDFC Bank was pressurising the complainant to make the balance payment and threatening to initiate various levels of action against the complainant.

9. Initially the Ops refused to act, yet subsequently the Ops realized their mistake and apologized, vide, their letter dated 09.06.2022, to the Complainant in which they are apologizing that they did cause mental stress to the complainant and felling sorry for what the complainant had to go through. The complainant made the third attempt so that the Respondent Bank may pay to the HDFC out of the complainant’s a/c. This time the complainant sought to transfer the fund by RTGS, vide, the slip issued for the purpose on 17.06.2022, as the ombudsman wanted the complainant to do so. A copy of the said RTGS slip dated 17.06.05.2022 is enclosed. The complainant has sent a legal Notice to both the Ops by e-mail on 11.01.2023, and by courier on 12.01.2023, to which no reply has been given till date. It is clear that there was a deliberate attempt to avoid and was negligent in making the payments of 14 lacks from the account of the complainant, and same was restored only due to the timely complaint to and injury to the complainant, and also caused mental agony.

10. In the circumstances, the submission of the complainant is that, the OP Bank. Their agents and employees, failed to meet any standard of service, by their apathy aggravated the suffering of the complainant and were unmindful of the obligations towards the bona fide consumers; they have indulged in activities that amounted to inflicting injuries on the complainant because of willful indulgences in deficiency in service; and as such the Ops deserved to be directed for making adequate compensation commensurate with the agony, injury and suffering undergone by the complainant. Hence this complaint by the complainant.

11. On issue of notice to OPs, the OPs filed their version.

12. In the version of the OPs, all the averments of the complainant are rejected and disapproved by the opposite party No 1 & 2. At the outset, the complainant is a MOD customer, that means customer opted for multi-option deposit Scheme of State Bank if India, that is the OP No 1 & 2. Hence as per the said scheme, the monist of the complainant account will be converted to Fixed Deposits/Term Deposits with higher interest rate after keeping minimum liquidity in the account for regular withdrawals. Hence the transactions as made by a regular saving bank account holder can take place only when the liquidity after account sweeps match with such intended transactions. In all other cases, such customers need to liquidate the required amounts from the sweep-in term deposits before issuing an instrument for such amounts. Such arrangements happens invariable at home branches or online for the safety and security of customers.

13. The averment made by the complainant are generic in nature and the fact that the Complainant is a customer of OP Bank is true. It is correct only to the extent that the complainant issued 3 cheques subjected to production of obstruct evidence on amounts, cheque number, dates etc., & it is correct only to the extent that the cheques were returned with remarks “88-Other reasons”. The averment that the Complainant had made sure that his account had sufficient balance is wrong. The complainant herein hold an MOD account with Respondent the available balances were only to sustain the collection of Rs 17,768/-, the third cheque as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant never bothered to ensure liquidity for remaining 2 cheques together amounting Rs. 14,00,000/- and hence the amounts were safely parked as term deposits earning higher interest at the instruction of the Complainant and since the Ops didn’t have any instructions to liquidate such deposit to clear the incoming cheque, the said cheques were not cleared.

14. The cheque was dis-honoured as there was no  instruction to clear such amounts for upcoming cheques clearance and the said funds were kept by the Complainant as term deposits earning higher interest at the instruction of the Complainant. The extent that the complainant was advised to visit the home branch  and liquidate his term deposits to the extent so as to clear the required amounts and in coordination with the home branch, through RTGS mode, the said amounts were cleared without any hassles. For the date, time, amounts etc., this cause of action is based only on the fact that the Complainant issued cheques that was not cleared by the Respondents and such action caused certain hardship and money loss to the Complainant as the Complainant home loan payment dues caused additional burden of interest and cheque return fees etc. In the due course of this complaint, the complainant knowingly hid the fact that he is not a regular saving account customer of the OP rather he is a MOD account holder that required additional intervention in money clearance due to the  nature of such accounts which the Complainant is already aware of. Hence this Complaint is a deliberate attempt to gain undue advantage and monetary gain using this Honorable Commission as a leverage. Hence this complaint may be dismissed with costs.

The Complainant has filed A/E along with 9 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. Heard OP No.2, complainant and both have filed written arguments.

15. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

16.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                   REASONS

17. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

18. On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant in the Ex.P.1, it is a copy of written instrument pertained as per reasons, received from drawee bank i.e. HDFC bank under C.T.C clearing, which says that the “Reason for return is 88 Other Reasons”. Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are the G-mails conversations of the complainant to OP regarding the dishonor of cheques, though the complainant is holding balance of Rs.15,00,000/- in his said S.B account No.00000030694957545 in the OP bank. Ex.P.5 is acknowledgement copy of the complainant registered with R.B.I against S.B.I. On perusal of the documents Ex.P.7 which is reply from S.B.I to Mr. Vivin Gorge, i.e. complainant, dated 09.06.2022 regarding the dishonor of cheque.

DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE NO 925115 AND 952122

Sir,

       With respect to the captioned complaint, in continuation to our telephonic conversation on the captioned subject, firstly we would like to apologize for all the delay and mental stress you have to go through because of it. Since there was a technical issue, cheque was dishonoured. Secondly, we assure to compensate you whatever extra interest incurred on the loan account with HDFC.

Also we are ready to remit the funds via RTGS to HDFC account, if you could provide us with single request with beneficiary details.

19. As seen in the above letter, it clearly shows that the OP is under frault, hence OP accepts and apologizes and assures to rectify and compensate with interest for the damages accured to the complainant, even after the complainant has issued cheques three times and was not honoured for 3 times. The OP failed to guide the complainant and shown negligence.

20. On perusal of the documents submitted by OP, the online statement of the account No.30694957545 of the S.B.I clearly shows that the account is “Active Account”. Considering the above documents we see that the OPs are under frault and have shown deficiency in service. Therefore OP is directed to pay Rs.23,000/-  along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of complainant till order to the complainant which is adhoc amount that complainant had to pay due to the negligence of the OPs. OPs are also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Hence we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.

21. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                   ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.23,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till this order.
3. OPs are also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
4. The OPs are directed to pay the Award amount within 60 days from the date of order, failing which OPs will have to pay 10% p.a. interest on the total Award amount.

5. Furnish copies to both the parties, without cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 20^th day of DECEMBER, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL