2. The Regional Manager,

    Syndicate Bank,

    Corporate Office, Gandhi Nagar,

    Bangalore,

    Karnataka State.

3. The Governor,

    Reserve Bank of India,

    Mumbai.                                                                … Opposite Parties

          This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      03-05-11 in the presence of Sri N.Uma Maheswara Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri C.Narendra Babu, advocate for OP1, OPs 2&3 remained exparte, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                   This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite parties to receive the spoiled, torn or mutilated currency as per the guidelines from the customers at the time of remitting the amounts in the bank and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and for costs.

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                   The complainant is doing hosieries business and used to collect amounts daily since 40 years.  For smooth running of business he opened an account bearing No.201/8806 with 1^st opposite party bank and used to deposit the collected amounts in the said opposite party bank.  The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.4,100/- on 15-03-10 at about 11.30 am with the denomination 500x3 = Rs.1500/-, 100x15 = Rs.1500/-, 50x8 = Rs.400/-, 20x5 = Rs.100/-, 10x60 = Rs.600/-. While so, he gave two Rs.50/- notes bearing No.OTU 957303 and 2DT 846673 and the same were rejected by the cashier of 1^st opposite party bank on the ground that the notes were partially torn and they will not accept such notes.  Then the complainant substituted with Rs.100/- and obtained pay-in-slip from the counter.  Subsequently, the complainant brought RBI book circular No.4863 and furnished the same to 1^st opposite party.  But of no use. 

                   As per RBI guidelines Master Circular No.DCM (NE)G3/09 07 18/2009/10 dt.01-07-09 damaged and spoiled notes can be exchanged at any commercial branch including mutilated notes can be exchanged at currency chest branches of commercial banks.  But the two notes issued by complainant were unilaterally rejected by 1^st opposite party.

                   The complainant issued two notices on 26-03-10 and on 06-05-10. First one was received by 2^nd opposite party and a reply notice was issued to pervious counsel.  Second one was received by opposite parties 1 & 2 and 1^st opposite party gave reply in vague manner but opposite parties 2 and 3 did not choose to give any reply.  The 1^st opposite party committed deficiency of service.  Thus the complaint.

3.  The 1^st opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

                   The complainant is a regular customer of this opposite party bank and he visits the bank regularly and deposits money in his account.  This opposite party bank has been accepting cut and spoiled notes from their customers including the complainant as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.  There were some disputes regarding exchange of couple of notes between the cashier and complainant on 15-03-10 and by observing the same the Manager of this opposite party bank requested the complainant to get restraint with an assurance that the matter will be solved to his satisfaction.  But unfortunately this opposite party could not satisfy/specify the complainant.  In fact this opposite party has considered the complainant as one of their valued customer and continued to extend best possible service and this opposite party bank expect the same type of reciprocation from the complainant.

                   The opposite party bank being a public institution treat all its customers dignity and respect without one giving any scope for discrimination.  This opposite party regret for the furor that happened on 14-03-10 which could have been avoided if there had been little bit of restrain from both sides.  In fact soon after receiving notice from the counsel of complainant dt.16-03-10 a fit and proper reply was given to the then counsel of complainant but surprisingly the same was returned as not claimed.  Further added to it another notice was also sent by complainant through his 2^nd counsel dt.06-05-10 and the same reply given earlier was issued to counsel of complainant.  The reply notices sent by bank are not received by complainant earlier may be treated as part and parcel of this reply.

                   This was not a first time that the complainant came with this kind of allegations.  Earlier he made false allegations against the then Managers and also filed defamation suits and criminal complainants against them i.e., OS 526/06 on the file of V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur claiming compensation of damages for Rs.3,00,000/- and criminal complaint u/s.499 and 500 of IPC on the file of IV Addl. Munsiff Magistrate, Guntur.  The suit i.e., 525/06 was dismissed for default long back and the criminal complaint was dismissed and the complainant preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of AP and the same was also dismissed later on 25-03-09.                      The complainant searched for a fresh cause and the present allegation might be one which was looked by him under objective mirror.  But by impleading higher authorities of opposite party bank and RBI for petty causes the complainant wanted to damage the reputation of this opposite party.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.                The opposite parties 2 and 3 remained exparte.  The complainant and 1^st opposite party have filed their respective affidavits.  Ex.A1 to A8 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B1 to B9 on behalf of 1^st opposite party were marked.                            

5.      Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINTS 1 & 2

                   The complainant issued two Rs.50/- notes in course of depositing an amount of Rs.4,100/- in the 1^st opposite party bank.  The cashier rejected the notes on the ground that they are partly torn.  Later, the complainant has shown the RBI guidelines to opposite party bank and requested to received the notes but 1^st opposite party has not accepted the notes.  The 1^st opposite party admitted in its version that there arose a dispute between the complainant and cashier regarding exchange of couple of notes.  The allegation of complainant regarding refusal to receive Rs.50/- notes is not specifically denied by 1^st opposite party in its version.   

7.                The Reserve Bank of India has delegated full powers to all banks through Master Circular No.DCM (NE)G3/09.07.18/2009/10 dt.01-07-09 for exchange of torn/mutilated defective notes at free of cost for the benefit and convenience of public under Reserve Bank of India (Notes Refund) Rules, 1975 (as amended upto 1980).

8.                The particular portion of the circular pertaining to the present issue is hereunder: 

Reserve Bank of India (Notes Refund) Rules, 1975 (as amended upto 1980) – Delegation of full powers

Liberalized definition of cut notes:

                   In order to facilitate quicker exchange facilities, the following types of soiled and cut notes should be freely exchanged by all bank branches.  They should also be accepted over bank counters in payment of Government dues and for credit of accounts of the public maintained with banks. 

I. Single numbered notes – Rs.1/-, Rs.2/-, Rs.5/-

                   Note presented should not be in more than two pieces.  No essential feature of the note should be missing and complete number should be available in an undivided area on one of the pieces.

II. Double numbered notes – Rs.10/-, Rs.20/-, Rs.50/-, Rs.100/-, Rs.500/- & Rs.1000/-

                   The note presented should not be in more than two pieces.  No essential feature of the note should be missing.  Both the pieces should be of the same note, i.e. the complete number in an undivided area on each piece should be the same.

The above types of notes will be treated as soiled notes and be kept along with soiled notes.  These unfit notes shall, in no case, be issued to the public as reissuable notes but shall be deposited in currency chests for onward transmission to RBI offices as chest remittances.

Mutilated notes – presentation and passing

                   A mutilated note is a note of which a portion is missing or which is composed of pieces.  Mutilated notes may be presented either at issue offices of RBI or designated bank branches of commercial banks.  Mutilated notes so presented may be passed as per the rules framed under Reserve Bank of India (Note Refund) Rules, 1975 (as amended up to 1980), which is available on RBI.website at www.rb.org.in

9.                The above guidelines clearly show that the notes in question can be exchanged with 1^st opposite party bank. But                 1^st opposite party refused to receive the said notes without following the above guidelines of RBI.

10.              As already stated above, the 1^st opposite party negligently refused to receive the two notes in question ignoring the guidelines of RBI. Therefore, we find deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.   

11.              The complainant is entitled to receive compensation from 1^st opposite party for the inconvenience caused to him and for mental agony suffered by him. 

                   In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to complainant as compensation for mental agony. 
2. The 1^st opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs of complaint.
3. The above orders shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amounts ordered in item No.2 and 3 shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till the date of realization.     

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 18^th day of May, 2011.    

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT             

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:        

For 1^st opposite party:

                                                                                              Sd/-XXXX

                                                                                                PRESIDENT