BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.78/2008 Order dated this the 14th day of October 2008 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Nagamma, W/o Padma Narasimhaswamy, 4th Cross, Opposite Hosahalli School, Hosahalli, Mandya. (By Sri.K.V.Sheshadri., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, State Bank of Mysore, V.V.Road, Mandya. (By Sri.Shivalingaiah., Advocate) Date of complaint 08.08.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 14.08.2008 Date of order 14.10.2008 Total Period 2 Months Result The complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant and further to deposit Rs.5,000/- as punitive damages to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Forum within 6 weeks from this day. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite party for compensation of Rs.10,000/- with notice charges of Rs.1,000/- with cost alleging deficiency in service. 2. The case of the complainant is that she is having S.B. Account in the Opposite party bearing account no.64024107167. The complainant has obtained order of maintenance from the court in C.Mis 55/2006 for Rs.900/- p.m. and whenever the court cheque was remitted to the Opposite party Bank it has to transfer the cheque amount from the court account to the complainants account. The two cheques remitted by the complainant for collection were transferred to the account of the complainants account. But cheque No.047368 dated 10.03.2008 for Rs.900/- remitted to the Opposite party Bank on 18.03.2008, but no transfer of the amount was made till first week of May 2008. This non-transfer of the amount came to knowledge of the complainant only when she approached the court during first week of May 2008. Immediately the complainant approached the Opposite party Bank and on enquiry the bank authority returned the cheque with challan asking the complainant revalidated cheque without assigning any reason. The act of the Opposite party Bank for non-transferring the amount of the cheque to the complainants account within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency of service. In this regard, the legal notice was issued on 12.05.2008 and the Opposite party has sent evasive reply on 27.05.2008 to avoid its liability. Further, without any authority of the complainant, the Opposite party has deducted Rs.300/- from the complainants account on 19.06.2008 for which a fresh legal notice was issued for another deficiency. The complainant was put to inconvenience by non-transferring the amount of maintenance to her account has to maintain her two minor children. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that complainant is a account holder and presented the court cheque bearing No.047368 dated 10.03.2008 for realization on 18.03.2008. The Civil Court has account with the Opposite party Bank and this Opposite party Bank honours the court cheque as per the rules. The payment was not made till 1st week of May 2008. It was due to wrong account number mentioned as 64024614145 in pay-in-slip by the complainant. It is false that non-transfer of the amount to the complainants account came to the knowledge of the complainant only when she approached the court during 1st week of May 2008 and there was no occasion to the court official to inform the complainant about the non-payment of the cheque amount. The Opposite party clearly explained to the complainant the reasons for non-payment of cheque amount and requested to correct account number and get it revalidated the cheque. But the complainant suppressed the true things and alleged falsehood so as to suit her convenience. Therefore, absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. The Opposite party Bank has paid the reply notice charge of Rs.300/- to his advocate and the same has been debited to the account of the complainant as legal charges as per the contract between the complainant and Opposite party Bank. The Opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service at all and Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. During trail, the Complainant is examined CW.1 and her son Gurudath examined CW.2 and Ex.C.1 to C.8 are marked. On behalf of the Opposite party one witness is examined RW.1. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not transferring the cheque amount to the complainants account? 2) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in debiting Rs.300/- as legal notice charges from the account of the complainant? 3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT No.1:- The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that the complainant is having S.B. Account No.64024107167 and she used to present the court cheque for realization and the Opposite party Bank was honouring the cheque and crediting the cheque amount to the account of the complainant. Ex.C.5 is the copy of the pass book of the complainant. 9. The grievance of the complainant is that the court cheque dated 10.03.2008 for Rs.900/- was presented to the Bank on 18.03.2008, but the Opposite party has failed to remit the cheque amount to the account of the complainant from the court account, because of his negligence and she came to know this fact only in the 1st week of May 2008, when the court authorities informed that the cheque issued in the month of March was not encashed. But the contention of the Opposite party is that though the cheque was presented to the Bank on 18.03.2008, but in pay-in-slip wrong account number i.e., 64024614145 was mentioned. Therefore, the cheque amount was not transferred to the account of the complainant and only in the 1st week of May 2008, when CW.2 came to the bank and the mistake was informed with information to get revalidated the cheque and present the cheque with correct number. Of course, in the pay-in-slip attached to the court cheque Ex.C.1, the account number of CW.2 Gurudath is mentioned in the pay-in-slip Ex.C.3, then it is struck off and thereafter the account number of the complainant is mentioned in the column of pan number. It is an admitted fact that in the 1st week of May 2008 when Gurudath approached, the Opposite party Bank returned the court cheque and the pay-in-slip Ex.C.3. The complainant has also produced the Ex.C.2 the counter file of the pay-in-slip it clearly proves that CW.2 presented the cheque with pay-in-slip entering his account number, but when the officer of the Opposite party Bank received the cheque with pay-in-slip, it is his duty to verify whether the name mentioned in the cheque tallies with the account number and if it was not tallying, he should have returned the cheque with challan to enter the correct account number. But simply the officer who received the cheque with pay-in-slip has returned the counterfoil Ex.C.2 putting the seal of Bank and even has put the seal of transfer on the pay-in-slip Ex.C.3. Though RW.1 the Officer of the Bank has deposed that in the late hours they will scrutinize the cheque and pay-in-slip for transfer of the cheque amount from the court account, endorsement should have been written on the pay-in-slip that account number does not tally. Of course, the account number of Gurudath is written in the pay-in-slip Ex.C.3 and counterfoil Ex.C.2 and later it is struck off and account number of complainant is written. It is the evidence of the Gurudath CW.2 that after enquiring the bank by presenting the cheque he struck off his account number and mentioned his mothers account number. 10. Admittedly the court cheque is dated 10.03.2008 and presented on 18.03.2008 and the court cheque is valid for 15 days from the date of issue. So within 6 or 7 days the court cheque should have been encashed by the Opposite party Bank from the court account to the account of the complainant. It is the evidence of the CW.2 Gurudath that during 1st week of May 2008 his mother informed him to enquire about the realization of the cheque with the bank, on the ground that the court officer informed his mother that the cheque issued was not realized and the court account is not tallied, then he approached the bank showing the counterfoil of the pay-in-slip for which Opposite party informed him to get revalidated the cheque since the cheque amount was not debited in the court account due to oversight. If we analyse the evidence of CW.2 Gurudath who presented the cheque to the bank and who received back the cheque with challan, there is no reason to discard his evidence, because at one breath it is suggested to this witness that he dropped the cheque to box. But he has deposed that he submitted to the cheque to the concerned officer and obtained the challan, he has subsequently deposed though has written his account number by mistake in the challan, but it was verified in the computer and then he mentioned the account number of his mother. He has denied the suggestion that after return of the cheque and challan, the account number was corrected by this witness Gurudath, but the primary duty of the bank officer is not discharge properly. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be accepted that the complainant had deposited the cheque with challan in the cheque box by writing wrong account number, because this Cw.2 has obtained the seal of the Opposite party bank to the counterfoil challan Ex.C.2. So there is no question of dropping the cheque with challan to the challan box kept in the Opposite party Bank. So, when the officer of the Opposite party bank received the cheque with challan and when he found that the name mentioned in the cheque is not tallying with the account number mentioned in the challan he must have informed the mistake and therefore CW.2 Gurudath has corrected the number and presented and the contention that only after return of the challan to CW.2 the account number of the complainant has been mentioned by a striking off his account number cannot be accepted at all. If the correct account number is not mentioned when the cheque was presented to the bank, the Officer should have return back the cheque and challan without putting any seal of presentation instructing the party to mention the correct account number. Further, there is no question of returning the challan Ex.C.3 to CW.2 Gurudath when the cheque was returned for revalidation because the time of the court cheque for encashment has expired. If actually the correct account number of the complainant has not been mentioned in the pay-in-slip Ex.C.3 at the time of scrutiny in the later hours, even for the shake of arguments, the officer who scrutinized the court cheque and the pay-in-slip and found the account number is not correct he should have made an entry on the challan itself that account number mentioned in the pay-in-slip is not tallying with the name mentioned in the pay-in-slip and the court cheque and hence, the cheque was not realized. We do not find any such remarks or entry in the pay-in-slip to show whether actually they verified in the late hours after presentation of the cheque. 11. Further, admittedly Gurudath has also S.B.Account in the Opposite party Bank as per Ex.C.4 and he has presented the mothers cheque. Of course, he has mentioned his account number in the pay-in-slip, if actually in the pay-in-slip only account number of the Gurudath is mentioned and not the account number of the complainant, they could have written a letter to Gurudath, because the address of Gurudath is available with the Opposite party bank. Gurudath CW.2 is known to the Opposite party bank officer because they have returned the cheque and pay-in-slip to Gurudath and not to the complainant. There is no explanation as to why a letter was not sent to Gurudath though address is available because it is Gurudath who presented the cheque wrongly writing his account number also in the pay-in-slip. When only 6 days are available for encashment of the court cheque and if actually the account number of the complainant was not mentioned in the pay-in-slip and only the account number of the Gurudath is mentioned, nothing prevented the Opposite party Bank to send a letter to Gurudath about mentioning with the wrong account number. The contention that Gurudath tried to encash the cheque of his mother to his account cannot be believed because the court cheque is account payee cheque in the name of Nagamma, why they returned back the pay-in-slip Ex.C.3 to Gurudath, if actually the account number of Nagamma was not mentioned is not explained by the Opposite party and it is the document of Opposite party Bank for reference and to answer any problem and this pay-in-slip does not contain any remarks by the Opposite party Bank Officer that the cheque amount could not be transferred as the account number does not tally to the name of Nagamma in cheque and pay-in-slip. If the Opposite party Bank had retained the copy of the pay-in-slip Ex.C.3 truth would have come out whether Gurudath subsequently i.e., after return of the cheque and the pay-in-slip, struck off his account number and entered the account number of his mother. On the face of Ex.C.3 and Ex.C.2 the challan it is apparent that the account number of Gurudath is struck off and the account number of the complainant has been written. When no notice was issued to Gurudath though is a account holder and his address is available, it clearly reflects the negligence on the part of Opposite party Bank Official and kept the court cheque with challan till approach in May 2008 by Gurudath. Though the Bank officer is well aware that the cheque presented in respect of Nagamma has only 6 or 7 days time for encashment and thereafter time expires for transfer of the amount from the court account. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that the Opposite party Bank official have failed to discharge their duties and render proper service to the customer and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 12. POINT NO.2:- Another grievance of the complainant is that without the authority of the complainant, the Opposite party has debited Rs.300/- from her account as lawyers legal fee, but the contention of the Opposite party is that they have debited the legal fee of Rs.300/- because they have sent reply through their advocate to the notice of the complainant and according to the Opposite party as per the contract between the account holder and bank they have charged legal fee. It is an admitted fact, the complainant got issued legal notice Ex.C.6 and to this legal notice Opposite party has sent reply through their advocate as per Ex.C.7 and thereafter the complainant has also issued another rejoinder notice Ex.C.8 complaining the illegal deduction of Rs.300/- from the account towards the legal notice charges. The Opposite party has not produced any document of contract between the complainant and the Opposite party that the Bank is empowered to deduct the amount from the account of the complainant towards the legal expenses of the bank. If the Opposite party bank has spent the amount on behalf of the complainant to defend the complaint, then only the bank has authority to debit the expenses from the account of the complainant and not otherwise. Therefore, the deduction of Rs.300/- from the account of the complainant towards the legal fee of notice is not tenable and hence, it is also a deficiency in service. Therefore, we answer point No.1 & 2 in the affirmative. 13. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.10,000/- with legal fee of Rs.1,000/- and cost. Admittedly, the complainant used to present the court cheque for collection in the Opposite party bank and it is a maintenance amount. So if the maintenance amount is not credited to her account naturally, she will be put to hardship for want of money to maintain her and her children. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is reasonable to award compensation of Rs.2,000/- with cost for the deficiency in service by the Opposite party Bank. Further, it is a fit case to impose punitive damages of Rs.5,000/-. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant and further to deposit Rs.5,000/- as punitive damages to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Forum within 6 weeks from this day. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 14th day of October 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
