PRESENT

                                                E-mail – piuscg@yahoomail.com

V/s

Opposite parties: -       

1.     The Branch Manager,

Canara Bank, Command Hospital Extn counter, Bangalore-560 007

2.     The Branch Manager,

Canara Bank, Ulsoor,

Bangalore

3.     Divisional Manager,

Customer Service Section

Circle office, Bangalore Metro

Spencer Towers, 86, MG Road,

Bangalore-560 001

4.     General Manager,

Canara bank, Retail Banking Wing, Spencer Towers, No.86,

M G Road, Bangalore – 560 001

O  R D E R

SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER.  

Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant are that complainant was bonafide savings account holder of Op bank who is working in defence, having his account in Canara Bank, commando hospital branch, Bangalore. Due to some emergency circumstances he wanted to use the facility of Bank to meet out his need when he was in Trichur of Kerala, Hence, complainant submitted a cheque for withdrawal of sum of RS.50,000/- at Canara Bank  main branch, Trichur, Kerala on 13/4/2009, cheque bearing no. 850475 dated 11/4/2009 and also submitted a cheque for Rs.2,80,000/- to transfer that amount to ICICI Bank a/c no. 000201090462, cheque bearing no. 850476 dated 13/4/2009. Both the cheques have been returned without honour with the two different reasons. One i.e Cheque bearing no. 850475 which is of Rs.50,000/- was dishonoured on the reason that “Instrument is not entered in system hence could not withdraw” and another cheque bearing no. 850476 which is pertaining to transfer of amount to ICICI Bank of Rs.2,80,000/- is retuned with endorsement of “Wrongly delivered / not drawn on us”.

2. Complainant submitted those two cheques for his need and it made him to face lot of inconvenience and hardship to arrange so much of money in unknown place. The complainant filed his grievance with Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Commando hospital, Bangalore, The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Ulsoor, Bangalore and Divisional Manager Customer service section Circle, M.G.Road, Bangalore on 5/8/2009, 8/10/2009 and 11/1/2010. All the Branch managers who receipted the complaints of the complainant had replied to him with regretting for inconvenience caused to the complainant. But nobody has settled his claim of Rs.18,000/- which he has incurred loss for the non availability of fund from Op bank in right time.  Hence, Complainant filed this complainant to this forum  seeking a direction to Op that without any genuine reason, Op bank dishonoured complainant’s cheques and returned, which caused monetary loss of Rs.18,000/- and mental agony, hardship.

3. Notice sent to Op 1 only, which was duly served and Op1 appeared through an advocate and filed his statement of objection. Op is not denying the allegations made by the complainant and also agreed that the mistake done by the bank is regretted and denied that complainant had incurred loss of Rs.18,000/- . Op has also contended that the grievance of the complainant has been settled earlier to this complaint. Since, complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint the complainant and one Mr. V.P.Unni Krishna, officer on behalf of op have filed their affidavit evidences reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version.  The complainant along with the complaint has produced the copy of cheques issued, copy of letters wrote to Op, copy of reply given by officers of Op bank, two copies of memorandum of cheques unpaid, copy of agreement of site which he is going to register in stipulated time, is hampered due to non availability of fund by Op. Along with version, Op has filed the copies of reply letters written by officers of Op bank. Heard the arguments of Counsel for Op, complainant who is in person and perused the records.

5. On the above materials, following points for determination arise.

1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused 

    deficiency in his service in not honouring the cheques?

2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

6. Our findings are as under:

Point No.1: In the affirmative

Point No.2: See the Final order

REASONS: 

7. Answer point no: 1 There is no dispute between the parties regarding the cheques issued by the complainant and the said cheques are dishonoured with some endorsement. One cheque bearing no. 850475 for Rs.50,000/- and another bearing no. 850476 for Rs.2,80,000/- for transferring of amount to ICICI bank, which were issued to the Canara Bank, Trichur when the complainant had been to Trichur, Kerala. Firstly, the cheque bearing no.850475 for Rs.50, 000/- was self cheque which was retuned as “instrument is not entered in the system hence could not withdraw”. When there is core banking system is adopted by all banks, it is really helpful to the customers that where ever a person needs money, he can withdraw from his account. Here also complainant being a customer having his account in Bangalore and he found need of money when he was in Trichur, Kerala, he tried to get it from there itself by issuing self cheque, but he could not. The reason is that instrument is not entered in the system.  Even Op has admitted the mistake and regretted for the inconvenience caused to the complainant on the reason that cheques were issued to the complainant two years back from the date of its presentation and same was not entered in the computer, since the said branch was not fully computerized at that time. The contention of Op can be taken into consideration but it is not a ground to dishonour the cheque. It was the duty of the bank officials to update the instruments in the system when  it is fully computerized, then only customer can transact with the bank otherwise the purpose of computerization or core banking will be failed. Op has also admitted that any customer can withdraw maximum of Rs.50,000/- from any branches other than the branch where he is having the account. Since, these advanced facilities are provided by the banking sector, is of no use when his cheque was rejected from honour as happened to this particular customer. It indicates the negligence on the part of Op in not updating the cheque book issued to the complainant in the system and on the same reason Canara Bank, Trichur has rejected the cheque for Rs.50,000/-. It might have caused lot of inconvenience and hardship to the complainant in arranging the huge amount at unknown place. The objective of the core banking is that such a situation should not occur in unknown places to the customer and he should get money of his own without any trouble.

8. Secondly, regarding the cheque bearing no. 850476 for Rs.2,80,000/- which was issued to the account of complainant in ICICI bank. Since, complainant having his savings account in Canara Bank, Commando Hospital branch, Bangalore the complainant could have drop the said cheque either in Bangalore commando hospital branch or ICICI bank where he is having his account, then he could have get his money as he required. But complainant has dropped the cheque in Canara Bank, Trichur which has not right to transfer the amount to his ICICI bank account.  When Canara Bank, Trichur is not at all having any customer relationship with this particular complainant there is no binding on them to serve for him. But out of goodwill, Trichur bank could have redirected the said cheque to Bangalore branch and could transfer the amount to account of the complainant of ICICI bank as he desired. It is option but not binding on the Trichur bank. Therefore, the endorsement given as “Wrongly delivered/ Not drawn on us” is not a fault on Canara Bank, Trichur who is not a party in this complaint.  Hence, we find no deficiency of Op in this particular cheque issued by the complainant.

9. Regarding the letters and complaints filed with higher officers of Canara Bank on 5/8/2009 which was addressed to Op and the same has been sent to The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Ulsoor Bangalore, letter dated 8/10/2009 and 11/1/2010 addressed to Op and the same has been sent to Canara Bank, Ulsoor and Canara Bank, J.C.Road, Bangalore. In which the complainant also requested to reply and claimed the amount of Rs.18, 000/- which is said to be financial loss caused due to the mistake of Op. Op admitted the mistake done by him in their reply letter dated 8/10/2009 but only dispute is regarding the claim amount. Op has contended that the claim of the complainant is already settled before approaching this forum, but not produced any proof to rely upon that. 

          10. The complainant submitted that he was in need of huge amount for the purpose of getting registration of a site purchased by him. The complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- as advance towards site, balance and full amount was supposed to pay on or before 16/4/2009 otherwise the advance amount of Rs.25,000/-will be  forfeited as per the agreement. Due to inconvenience caused by the Op, Complainant requested them to postpone the date of registration on payment of Rs.17,500/- which was demanded  by the owner of the site ,the copy of agreement is enclosed by the complainant. The complainant also submitted as reply to the contention taken in the statement of objection filed by the Op that all the hardship, inconvenience and loss cannot be proved with document.  Considering the fact that complainant or any person withdraw amount to meet out his requirement and not otherwise. It is acceptable, but loss of Rs.18,000/- is not proved by the complainant. There is no doubt about the mistake done by Op which made the complainant to suffer.

11. Hence, Op has admitted the fact that the fault is at his side in not updating the complainant’s instrument in the system and made him to roam for money in unknown place which caused lot of inconvenience, hardship and mental agony due to the deficiency in service of Op. Thus OP is liable to pay damages to the complainant. Therefore we find deficiency in the service of OP and the complaint is to be allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following order.                                                   

O R D E R

         Complaint is allowed.

Op is directed to pay Rs.6,000/- to the complainant as damages within 30 days from this order for inconvenience, mental agony and hardship.

Failing which, Op shall pay interest @ 12% p.a on Rs.6,000/- from the date of this order till the date of payment till it is realized.

Op shall pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 29^th January 2011.

Member                         Member                   President