Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/28/2021

P Santhanam, S/o Mr. Pakkrisamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst Engineer, TNEB Foreshore Estate - Opp.Party(s)

D.Solomon Pandiyan

06 Feb 2023

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 14.12.2020

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 23.01.2023

                                                    Date of Order               : 06.02.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,              :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.28 /2021

MONDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

P.Santhanam, aged 60 years,

S/o. Pakkrisamy,

15/30, K.M.N Street,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Mandavelipakkam,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                                                                                                  ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

1.The Assistant Engineer,

   TNEB, foreshore Estate,

   33/11 KV SS TNEB,

   Foreshore Estate, Chennai – 600 028.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

   HDFC Bank Ltd,

   115, Radhakrishnan Salai,

   Mylapore,

   Chennai – 600 004.                                                                                                                                    ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant         : M/s. D. Solomon Pandian

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party  : M/s. J. Hemalatha Gajapathy

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party : Exparte

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the penalty of Rs.250/- collected from him and for returning the cheque 626363 dated 08.10.2020 without representing it, to pay a damages of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards the mental agony and stress put forth by the Opposite Parties due to their deficiency in service.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant is Consumer using the services of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). TNEB distributes electricity to all the residences in Chennai. As a consumer, he was availing their services through Consumer No.0113500388. Electricity charges are billed Bi-monthly. Bi-monthly bills towards the electricity consumed are received and their charges by way of Indian Bank, High Court Branch Cheques. As a customer of the said Bank he was holding a SB account No:484058674 and Cheque facility was issued to him. Hehave been using these Indian Bank cheques for the payment of his electricity consumption charges for several years. TNEB meter reading the meter in Consumer No.0113500388 was noted by the 2^nd Opposite Party on 08.10.2020 and consumption of 740 Units and the Charges of Rs.3,364/- was recorded to be paid on or before 28.10.2020. Hence he went to 2^nd Opposite Party for making payment of said EB Charges and issued them his Indian Bank cheque No.626363 dated 08.10.2020 towards the October 2020 TNEB charges for Rs.3,364/-.The 2^nd Opposite Party deposited his said cheque with their bankers namely 3^rd Opposite Party – M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd, Who had scanned the said cheque as per Cheque Truncation System (CTS) procedures and presented the scanned image of his cheque in RBI clearing for receiving payment from Indian Bank. The said cheque was returned by  Indian Bank “not for funds insufficient” but with directions to REPRESENT the instrument. As there were possibilities that the image scanned by the 3^rd Party HDFC Bank may not be clear or as per procedure, since they have not issued any of the standard cheque return numbers or reason when instruments are returned for any defect in the instrument or there are no sufficient balance to clear the instrument. There was sufficient balance in his account for clearing the said cheque by his banker. The 3^rdOpposite Party – M/s.HDFC Bank Limited however without taking the directions of Indian Bank to represent the said cheque, they have callously returned his Indian Bank Cheque to 2^nd Opposite Party – TNEB along with their covering letter dated 15.10.2020 with an endorsement “CONTACT DRAWER BANK AND REPRESENT”. 2^nd Opposite Party – TNEB instead of asking their bankers i.e the 3^rd Opposite Party – HDFC Bank to represent his said Cheque, they called him and said that his Cheque was returned for funds insufficient and they returned the said cheque. The 2^nd Opposite Party – TNEB informed that since his cheque got bounced, he had to pay the full amount by way of cash to them along with the cheque bouncing charges of Rs.250/- in FULL else they would disconnect the TNEB electricity connection at his residence. To avoid disconnection of electricity he paid the charges in FULL along with the fine amount of Rs.250/- under protest and a receipt for the same was issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party. He informed the 2^nd Opposite Party – TNEB Officials that he had been issuing Indian Bank Cheque for the electricity consumption charges for many years. Not even once the cheques were returned for want of funds. However they declined to re-present his said cheque for clearance again and handed over the instrument to him. Aggrieved by the callous attitude of the 2^nd Opposite Party – TNEB officials and the insult and the stigma of cheque returned in his account, he issued  separate notices to the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties vide letter dated 23.10.2020, but with no response. Hence sent a legal notice to 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties on 16.11.2020 seeking damages of Rs.1.00 lakh each from both 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties towards mental agony, financial loss and social stigma. The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties did not take any actions on the legal notice nor did try to resolve his grievances. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

        On inspection of the meter readings on 08.10.2020, the Complaint was liable to pay Rs.3,364/- towards current consumption charges on or before 28.10.2020. The Complainant had handed over a Cheque bearing No.626363 dated 08.10.2020 drawn on Indian Bank, High Court campus branch for an amount of Rs.3,364/- towards Current Consumption Charges. The above mentioned cheque was deposited with the 3^rd Opposite Party Bank and the same was returned unpaid with the endorsement “Contact Drawer Bank and Represent” dated 15.10.2020. As per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, Regulation 15 (4) in case the Cheque issued by the consumer is dishonoured due to insufficient funds, the consumer has to pay the amount which is due by cash along with the prescribed penalty. Regulation 15(4) of the supply code was extracted which says under Mode of Payment:

In case the cheque issued by a consumer is dishonoured for any reason whatsoever, the Low Tension Consumer will be required to pay thereafter the amount due by cash / money order / demand draft only. Such consumers shall pay service charges for dishonour of cheque as stipulated by the Commission. The Licensee shall have the powers to accord approval for restoring the cheque facility for payment by the consumers after watching the performance of the consumers in regard to settlement of current consumption charges at least for the last three consecutive billing periods in respect of LT Consumers and three months period in respect of HT consumers. The Licensee shall have the powers for restoration of cheque payment facility upon the fourth occasion after watching the performance of the consumers in regard to subsequent settlement of charges. This concession of restoration of cheque payment facility shall not be given thereafter for a service connection. The consumers who request for restoration of cheque payment facility shall pay charges as follows:

      (a) Low Tension consumer: Rs.300/-

      (b) High Tension consumer: Rs.1000/-“

   As soon as the dishonour of cheque, this Opposite Party informed the Complainant about the same and also informed that the Complainant is liable to pay the entire amount due together with Rs.250/- towards cheque bouncing charges, failing which the Electricity Connection would be disconnected. The Complainant paid the same on 22.10.2021 and a Receipt dated 22.10.2021 has been issued. At that time, the Complainant did not raise any objection but has now preferred the present Complaint did not raise any objection but has now preferred the present Complaint by way of an afterthought which is nothing but an attempt to extract monies from the Opposite Party.

       The allegation of callous attitude was denied and wholly baseless. For the letter dated 23.10.2020, the Complainant was given an explanation in person in the office of the Opposite Party No.2 and the allegations contra are denied. However, by way of an afterthought, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 16.11.2020 and for the same, the 2^nd Opposite Party once again explained that it is the duty of the Complainant to pay the current consumption charges on time and the dishonour of cheque is beyond the control of Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have acted as per the Electricity Act, 2003 and the code and Rules framed there under. The allegation of mental agony and financial loss are all false and denied. The Complainant has no case and the Complaint, take as it is, is one without cause of action. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. The Complainant had originally filed the present complaint arraying Chairman and MD, TANGEDCO as Opposite Party No.1 and arraying The Assistant Engineer, TNEB Foreshore Estate and HDFC BANK, as Opposite Parties 2 and 3, respectively. Thereafter the Complainant had deleted Chairman and MD, TANGEDCO arrayed as Opposite Party No.1, hence the Opposite Parties, namely, The Assistant Engineer, TNEB Foreshore Estate and HDFC BANK, arrayed as Opposite Parties 2 and 3, has been ranked The Assistant Engineer, TNEB Foreshore Estate as Opposite Party No.1 and HDFC BANK as Opposite Party No.2. And hence the description of 1^st Opposite Party refers The Assistant Engineer, TNEB Foreshore Estate and description of 2^nd Opposite Party refers to HDFC Bank. Further, the Written Version filed by Opposite Parties 1 and 2 namely Chairman and MD, TANGEDCO and The Assistant Engineer, TNEB Foreshore Estate, is taken as written version filed by The Assistant Engineer, TNEB Foreshore Estate as Opposite Party No.1. 

4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted its Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of 1^st Opposite Party documents was marked as Ex.B-1. In spite of sufficient notice served on the 2^nd Opposite Party (HDFC Bank, originally arrayed as 3^rd Opposite Party) failed to appear and hence set exparte.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had issued a cheque No.626363 dated 08.10.2020 drawn on Indian Bank, High Court campus branch, towards payment of electricity charges for a sum of Rs.3364/- for service Connection No. 0113500388 and the same was accepted by the 1^st Opposite Party, namely the Assistant Engineer, TNEB- Foreshore Estate. When the said cheque issued by the Complainant was presented through their Banker, i.e., HDFC Bank Ltd, the 2^nd Opposite Party, the same was returned to the 1^st Opposite Party with an endorsement “Contact Drawer Drawee Bank and Represent”.

The contention of the Complainant is that he had sufficient funds in his Bank Account, hence he was shocked when it was intimated by the 1^st Opposite Party that his cheque was got dishonoured for funds insufficient and further contended that as no standard cheque return instructions like any defect in the instrument or want of sufficient balance, was issued and it was returned with instructions “Contact Drawer Drawee Bank and Represent”, hence there were possibilities that the image of his cheque scanned by the 2^nd Opposite Party,i.e., 1^st Opposite Party’s Banker, may not be clear or not as per procedure, further without application of mind the 1^st Opposite Party instead of representing his cheque, had called him and informed him that his cheque was dishonoured for funds insufficient and returned his cheque, and had asked him to pay entire amount with cheque bouncing charges of Rs.250/-, failing which his electricity connection would be disconnected. In order to avoid the same he had paid the entire amount with fine amount of Rs.250/- under protest and the said amount was paid by the Complainant on 22.10.2020 to the 1^st Opposite Party.

Further contended that though he had sufficient funds in his bank account the cheque issued to the 1^st Opposite Party should have been honoured by his Bank, and only due to unclear image of the said cheque sent through CTS by the 2^nd Opposite Party, banker of the 1^st Opposite Party, or not as per the procedure of CTS, the said cheque would have got dishonoured and further it was clearly mentioned in the Return Memo issued by the 2^nd Opposite party to the 1^st Opposite Party that “Contact Drawee Bank and Represent” and not for insufficient funds, hence instead of representing the said Cheque the 1^st Opposite Party without application of mind had called the Complainant and refused to represent the cheque and returned the said cheque and claimed for the consumption charges of Rs.3364/- along with penalty charges of Rs.250/- towards dishonour of Cheque. Further contended that the 1^st Opposite Party initially in their written version had raised that the Complainant is not a Consumer and thereafter in their Proof Affidavit they had took a different stand and admitted that the Complainant is a Consumer.

The Contentions of the 1^st Opposite Party are that as the cheque issued by the Complainant when presented through their Banker, the 2^nd Opposite Party was returned dishonoured, as per Regulation 15(4) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, they had informed the Complainant and returned the dishonoured cheque and demanded to pay the consumption charges along with penalty charges of Rs.250/- towards cheque dishonour charges, on receipt of the dishonoured cheque the Complainant had paid the consumption charges along with penalty charges and as an afterthought after a month had sent a notice and thereafter a Legal notice to extract money from them. As per Regulation 15(4) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, they had acted and had not committed any deficiency of service.

On discussion made above and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the cheque bearing No.626363 dated 08.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.3364/- drawn on Indian Bank, Madras High Court Branch, Chennai, by the Complainant towards payment of Electricity consumption charges in favour of SE/CEDC/Central, as found in Ex.A-1 was presented by the 1^st Opposite party, namely the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Foreshore Estate, Chennai, through their Banker, HDFC Bank Ltd, 2^nd Opposite Party, the same was returned on 15.10.2020 with an endorsement “Contact Drawer Drawee Bank and Represent”, as found in Ex.A-2.

The 1^st Opposite Party had contended highlighting Regulation 15(4) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 which is reproduced as follows:

“15 - Mode of Payment- (4) – In case of Cheque issued by a consumer is dishonoured for any reason whatsoever, the Low Tension Consumer will be required to pay thereafter the amount due by cash/money order/demand draft only. Such Consumers shall pay service charges for dishonour of cheque as stipulated by the Commission. The Licensee shall have the powers to accord approval for restoring the Cheque facility for payment by the consumers after watching the performance of the consumers in regard to settlement of current consumption charges at least for the last three consecutive billing periods in respect of LT consumers and three months period in respect of HT consumers. The Licensee shall have the powers for restoration of cheque payment facility upon the fourth occasion after watching the performance of the consumers in regard to subsequent settlement of charges. This concession of restoration of cheque payment facility shall not be given thereafter for a service connection. The Consumers who request for restoration of cheque payment facility shall pay charges as follows: (a) Low Tension consumers : Rs.300/-, (b) High Tension consumers : Rs.1000/-.”

Considering the above Regulation which is in clear term that the Cheque issued by a consumer is dishonoured for any reason whatsoever, the Low Tension Consumer will be required to pay thereafter the amount due by cash/money order/demand draft only. Such Consumers shall pay service charges for dishonour of cheque as stipulated by the Commission. In the instant case though the cheque issued by the Complainant was returned dishonoured not for want of sufficient funds but returned dishonoured on presentation with an endorsement “Contact Drawer Drawee Bank and Represent” which falls under the term of the said Regulation “dishonoured for any reason whatsoever” and hence the Complainant was asked to pay the amount due by way of cash/money order/ Demand Draft only with pay service charges for dishonour of cheque, which was fixed at Rs.300/- as the Complainant being the Low Tension Consumer.

The judgment of Hon’ble High Court, Madras passed in S.A.No.1490 of 2002 dated 09.01.2015, relied upon by the Complainant, though the copy of Judgment produced is neither a Web copy/Certified Copy nor reportable, the facts and circumstances varies with that of the instant case and not applicable to the present case hence the same could not be considered by this Commission.     

Hence the Contention of the Complainant that there were possibilities that the image of his cheque scanned by the 2^nd Opposite Party,i.e., 1^st Opposite Party Banker, may not be clear or not as per procedure, would be the reason for dishonour of his cheque is not acceptable and sustainable, as the same is not substantiated with any material evidence as per law and failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party Bank. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint, hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 6^thof February 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	08.10.2020	Copy of the Cheque bearing No.626363 front and back
Ex.A2	15.10.2020	Copy of the HDFC Bank Cheque return memo with clean copy
Ex.A3	22.10.2020	Copy of the fine paid receipt
Ex.A4	23.10.2020	Copy of the Complainants letter sent to the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A5	23.10.2020	Copy of the Complainants letter sent to the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A6	16.11.2020	Copy of the legal notice sent to the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A7	16.11.2020	Copy of the legal notice sent to the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A8	-	Copy of the TNEB EB Card for Consumer Number 0113500388

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1

Copy of consumer Ledger

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT