Date of Filing:16.06.2008<br /> Date of Order:31.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1327 OF 2008<br /> <br /> C. Ramakrishnaiah<br /> No. 21, 2nd Floor, CADMAT Layout<br /> 2nd Stage, 6th Cross, RMV Extn.<br /> Bangalore 560 094 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> State Bank of Mysore<br /> No. 320, Krishnappa Building<br /> Bellary Road, Ganganagar Br.<br /> Bangalore 560 032 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant is having SB Account with opposite party bank. He had borrowed car loan from the Standard Chartered Bank for purchase of car. He had issued post dated cheques on SBM. Standard Chartered Bank on December 2005 informed him that they transferred his car loan to ICICI Bank Ltd. On 1.5.2007 in his SB Account there was cash balance of Rs. 9,311/-. The cheque dated 1.5.2007 was returned by the SBM with endorsement fund insufficient. ICICI Bank informed him there was default in payment of EMI of Rs. 6,950/-. The bank further declined loan because of default. The act of opposite party bank resulted in dis-repute of his financial credibility and caused mental agony. ICICI bank made him to pay over due interest of Rs. 1,579/-. Therefore, complainant has prayed that SBM be directed to pay compensation and opposite party be directed to grant personal loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-.<br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. The opposite party has put in appearance through advocate. Defence version filed stating that complainant has got SB account with the opposite party bank. When the branch was computerized old SB A/c No. 171363 was changed to 01190009231 after partial computerization and same was again changed to present account No. 54045946125. Complainant was required to mention the changed account No. in the old cheque leaves issued to him earlier to the computerization. He was required to surrender the old cheque leaves to opposite party bank for necessary correction. It is the complainant who failed to get the cheque leaves corrected. The complainant having failed in his obligation has now making allegations against opposite party bank. Cheque dated 03.05.2007 issued by the complainant for Rs. 6,950/- was bearing old account No. 171363. For this reason cheque was returned since there was no fund in the said account. Bank Manager called upon the complainant either to surrender old cheque leaves or to mention present account number to avoid repetition of such mistake. There is no deficiency of service. On the other hand the complainant himself is negligent having failed to mention new account No. Therefore, opposite party advocate requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard. I perused the documents.<br /> REASONS <br /> 4. The cheque issued by the complainant on 01.05.2007 for Rs. 6,950/- was having SB A/c No. 171363. The SB A/c No. was changed due to the computerization of the banking system. The complainant had written cheque on the old cheque leaf supplied to him and he has not mentioned new A/c No. on his cheque. The complainant has not taken the new cheque leaves after change of account No. On account of the issue of cheque with old a/c no. bank did not honour the cheque since no fund was shown in the old a/c No. by the computerization system. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. The complainant should have taken steps either collecting new cheque leaves from the bank or to correct SB A/c No. on the old cheque leaves. The complainant should have taken care of mentioning the correct SB A/c No. on the cheque leaf. But in this case the complainant has not taken proper care in issuing cheque. Therefore, the mistake had occurred. On the facts and circumstances of the case no fault could be found on the part of the opposite party bank. Therefore, question of granting compensation to the complainant does not arise. The second prayer of the complainant is opposite party bank may be directed to grant personal loan of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. This prayer needs no comment. The learned advocate for the opposite party is very fairly, properly and rightly submitted that opposite party bank is always willing to grant personal loan to the complainant or its customers on furnishing required documents as per banking rules and regulations. It is up to the complainant to apply for the loan and to furnish required documents as per the rules and get loan sanctioned for his requirement. No specific direction is required from the forum for the opposite party bank to sanction personal loan to the complainant. The complainant being the old customer of the opposite party bank is entitled to get any kind of loan from the opposite party bank on furnishing proper and required documents. Therefore, taking into consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 5. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF JULY 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />