BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 4th January 2017
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.392/2014
(Admitted on 30.09.2014)
Mr. Purushotham Bhat M,
Srikari, Kanadka Patel Road,
Shakthinagar, Mangalore.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt. LCH)
VERSUS
The Branch Manager,
Corporation Bank,
Kankanady Branch,
Mangalore 575002.
…....OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri. PNB)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain relief opposite party to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/ towards mental agony, deficiency in service and cost of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. Purushotham Bhat filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C6 detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Appaji C.N (RW1) Chief Manager also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.R1 to R3 detailed in the annexure here below.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
We have perused the complaint and the version averment of the parties. This dispute is with regard to dishonor of the complainant s cheque by the Opposite party in spite of fund available in the account. The complainant alleges that he had issued two cheque for payment of insurance premium and the opposite party in spite of having sufficient fund in the Account return the cheque on dishonor. The cheque was issued to the insurance premium for the income tax savings. Hence there is deficiency of service resulted in financial loss as well as mental agony. The Opposite party contends that the cheque was returned on the reason under the return code 05 that kindly contact the drawer drawee bank and please present again it is not dishonor since it is return to present it again. Opposite party also contends the return of cheque is due to mismatch of some details when presented through CTS system and the service branch tried to contact over phone but due to connection problem could not contact the Opposite party branch and clarified the mismatch due to limitation of time. Hence there is no deficiency in service from their part and it is the service branch bankers are responsible for the return of cheque. These being facts of the dispute, in resolving it we consider the following
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
We have taken a close examination of the evidence and the documents produced and formed an opinion that the admitted facts are the complainant issued two cheques of the Opposite party branch on his SB A/C for payment of insurance premiums of the complainant policies on 29.03.2014. Those two cheques returned uncleared with a remark under the bankers code no 05 which states kindly contact the drawer drawee bank and please present again. It is also admitted that those cheques are presented by the drawees of the service branch and the one service branch belongs to Opposite party only and the other is ING visya bank. It is also admitted that there was sufficient balance in the complainant s Account. It is established by produced documents that the amount paid through cheque is for the insurance premium of the complainant. The denied points are the dishonor of cheque,(asked to re-present), the Opposite party s liability for the complainant(as Opposite party contends the fault is with the service branch in not contacting the issued branch). Now after set off of the admitted facts and the denied and established in documents, we consider the following points for adjudication in resolving this dispute.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the consumer protection Act 1986?
- Whether the Opposite party proved the return of cheque is not the dishonor and the return is to respondent present and no liability from their part?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed?
- What order?
The documents produced and the evidence led are examined and the notes and the considered and we answered the above points as under:
- In the affirmative.
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- As per delivered order.
REASON
POINT NO 1: The documents Ex C1& C2 established that the complainant is the Account holder in the Opposite party bank and the complainant issued cheque in favour of insurance companies for premium payment. The Opposite party not disputed the complainant as consumer. As such the point no 1 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 2: The complainant allegation is he has issued a cheque in payment of insurance premium and that cheque has been dishonored and due to which he suffered financially and mentally. The Opposite party admitting the return of cheque contends that it is not a dishonor as it is stated as present it again under code no 05 that the cheque is presented through CTS clearance wherein the cheque physically not seen but only the scanned copy of the cheque is seen and acted upon, that on presentation of the cheque there was some details mismatch and due to limited time in the CTS system to clarify the cheque was returned to re present it in the interest of the complainant. The Opposite party also shifts blame on the service branches for sending the cheque back to the complainant with mistaken reason of return of cheque. Hence burden shifted on the Opposite party to prove their case and hence point no 2 taken for adjudication.
2. The opposite party in proving their case produced the Ex-R1 and drawn our attention towards code no 05 kindly contact the drawer drawee bank and please present again and submits it will not amount to dishonor. The Opposite party defenses are,That, the system of CTS works on display of presented cheque on the computer and there is some details mismatch. In Opposite party words in Para 8 of version while processing the cheque the serviced branch verifies images of cheque received on computer with the account particulars such as date of cheque, signature of the drawer of the cheque, drawer’s specimen signature, cheque issue details, availability of balance in the account etc.,...it was noticed by the service branch of the opposite party that the cheque issue particulars viewed in computer did not match with cheque leaves bearing no 386664, 36665 received in CTS clearing. Therefore the service branch because of limited time (shall be cleared or otherwise before 1.30 pm on the day of present), sent back the cheque with code 05 remarks to the collecting branch. The other contention of the Opposite party is the fault is not with them as the service banks could have kept the cheque with them and should have represented it in the next clearing day instead they return the cheque to the complainant with different reasons other than under code no 05 like contact drawer and fund insufficient which is the cause of dispute and the service branches are liable but not this Opposite party. Another defense of the Opposite party is in para 8 of version that the service branches made efforts to contact the issue branch through the available communication but could not get in touch with the issue Branch due to non availability of communication line during the very short time available to take decision as to clearance of cheque in CTS clearing
3. The Opposite party relied on the documents Ex R1which satisfies with regard to code 05 contents i.e. return of cheque to present it again. EX R2 and R3 are scanned copy of cheque which is return with reason code of return which is stated to be code 05 from this it is established that the opposite party has return the cheque with to 05 code kindly contact the drawer drawee bank and please present again now it is also established that the cheque is not return because of fund insufficient under code 01. In our opinion the remark ...please present again cannot be termed as dishonor for insufficient fund as the complainant contended. The complainant for his contention relied on documents EXC3and the EXC6 with enclosure issued by the ING life insurance company. The EXC3 issued by the LIC do not carry information as insufficient funds as it is reasoned as contact drawer however in the EX C 6 issued by the ING life insurance, we noticed the reason for return of cheque is mentioned as Funds insufficient surprisingly the document the bankers advice dated 04.04.2014 enclosed with EXR6 by the ING life insurance do not endorse the reason in the EXR6. This clearly shows that the cheque is returned with remark kindly contact drawer in the second page under code no 84 other reasons. Now it is crystal clear that the bankers documents produced by the complainant do not show the dishonor of cheque is due to insufficient fund as contended by the complainant. The ING life insurance is the party who has miscommunicated the reason for dishonor as insufficient funds but not either the Opposite party or its service banks. Hence the remark to under code no 05 ...please present again does not amount to dishonor due to insufficient fund and hence there no fault with the Opposite party. The complainant got wrong information by the insurer. Hence we answered the point no 2 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 3: The complainant prayed for the relief on the contention that the Opposite party has dishonored his cheque in spite of sufficient funds in his account. But as per above discussion and the documents produced it is proved that the Opposite party is not at fault for returning the cheque for insufficient funds but due to technical problem and it is returned on the reason of ...please present again hence not liable for the complainant. It is the ING life insurance company who mislead the complainant but who is not a party in the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to any damage or compensation from the Opposite party. Hence we answered the point no 3 in the negative.
POINT NO 4: As per above discussion and the adjudication of points we pass the following.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 directly typed by member revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 4th January 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
MEMBER
(SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G)
D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Purushotham Bhat
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
ExC1: Cheque No.386665 dated 29.03.2014 for Rs.7,560/, issued to ING Life Insurance
ExC2: Cheque No.386664 dated 29.03.2014 for Rs.26,335/, cheque Dated: 29.03.2014
ExC3: Intimation of Dishonour dated 07.04.2014 (2 Memos)
Ex.C4: Copy of the Legal Notice dated 18.06.2014
Ex.C5: Acknowledgement Card Dated 19.06.2014
Ex.C6: Intimation of Dishonor dated 11.04.2014 (2 pages)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1: Mr. Appaji C.N, Chief Manager
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: : Cheque return codes
Ex.R2: 29.03.2014: Copy of computer image of Cheque Bearing No.386664 for Rs.26,335/ issued in favour of LIC Corporation of India showing the Code No. Of Payee Bank, presenting Bank, Return date, Return reason code etc.
Ex.R3: 29.03.2014: Copy of computer image of Cheque bearing No.386665 for Rs.7,560/ issued in favour of ING Life Insurance showing the code No. of Payee Bank, presenting Bank, return date, return reason code, etc.
Dated: 04.01.2017 MEMBER
