Date of Filing : 31.05. 2010
Date of Order : 09.02.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.226/2010
TUESDAY THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
R. Hariharan,
S/o. Ramanathan,
No.22/3, Sapthagiri Apartments,
Alwarpet,
Chennai 600 018. ..Complainant
..Vs..
The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank,
North Mada Street,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004. ..Opposite party.
For the Complainant : M/s. C.D. Sugumar & another
For the Opposite party : M/s. L. Jayakumar & Associates.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.75/- as penality charges and Rs.10,500/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submit that he is maintain a savings account No.63993 with the opposite party bank for the past 8 years. He is operating the said account with cheque facility. The complainant’s savings bank account has a credit balance of Rs.7601/ as on 11.1.2010. The complainant issued a cheque bearing No.431710 dated 11.1.2010 infavour of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board for Rs.522/. Though he had sufficient balance in his savings bank account, the opposite party, without verifying the balance in the account, has returned the above mentioned cheque to Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board stating “Insufficient Funds”. As such the act of the opposite party in returning the cheque without properly verifying the balance in the account is clear case of deficiency in service as contemplated under provision of Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly the complainant sent a notice to the opposite party and even after receipt of notice failed to give any reply. As such complainant sought for claim to pay to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.75/- as penality charges and Rs.10,500/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
2. It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite party submit that the complainant has issued a cheque No.431710 to the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board for Rs.522/ dated 11.1.2010. Immediately after the incident, the opposite party has taken corrective measure as in the form of communication addressed to Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board with a request to restore the facilities to the complainant. Due to the dishonor of cheque by the opposite party bank, the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board has withdrawn its cheque facility to the complainant, as the complainant has not filed any proof of such withdrawal. The complainant has not filed any proof for payment of a penality of Rs.75/- to Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board for dishonor of the cheque, as alleged by him in the complaint. Hence the opposite party bank is not liable to pay the penality as prayed for in the complaint. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainants has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite party filed and no document was marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?.
5. POINTS 1 & 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite party, proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the opposite party and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 filed on the side of the complainant and also considered the both side arguments.
6. The complainant had issued a cheque for Rs.522/- in favour of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board on 11.1.2010 vide cheque 431710 dated 11.1.2010 to the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board drawn on Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch. The complainant was holding a savings bank account with the opposite party and on the date of issue of the cheque by the complainant he was having a credit balance of Rs.7601/- in his account. The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board he it has sent for realization the opposite party had returned the cheque on 18.1.2010 given the reasons (funds insufficient), since cheque was dishonored the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board had sent a letter to the complainant on 1.3.2010 stating the cheque had been dishonored and returned by the bank for the reason funds insufficient this is a serious offence and liable for punishment under Sec.138 of Negotiable Act and thereby informing the complainant a penality fee of 1% on the cheque amount subject to a minimum of Rs.75/- has to be paid within five days from the date of intimation. Based on this the complainant had served legal notice on 26.3.2010 claiming mental agony of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.500/- for issuing legal notice and penality of Rs.75/- totaling Rs.25,575/ to be paid by the complainant.
7. The opposite party had replied and denies averments in para-4 due to dishonor of cheque by the bank CMWSSB has withdrawn by CMWSSB has not been proved and there is no evidence of proof for the penality of Rs.75/ charged and paid by the complainant to the CMWSSB and no proof of legal fee Rs.500/- paid to the counsel of the complainant and the opposite party of the opinion the damages claimed by the complainant is grossly excessive and without any legal justification.
8. In pursuant of the proof affidavit and documents filed by complainant and the opposite party we found that the complainant was having a credit balance of Rs.7601/- on the day of issuance of cheque and return of cheque with a note of insufficient funds on 18.1.2010 shows dereliction of the duty of the bankers when the sufficient fund were available in the savings bank account of the complainant.
9. Hence we are of the considered view that this has created mental agony and reputation of the complainant which unnecessary made the complainant to receive a letter from Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board why he should not be penalized u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act whereby as per the act “he may be punished with imprisonments for a turn which may extent to one year or with fine which may extent to twice amount of the cheque or with both “ . The complainant had not submitted a proof of penalty levied by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board this will not be allowed and then legal fee paid for engaging a counsel there is no proof submitted. Considering all the facts and figure furnished in the Written arguments and proof affidavit submitted by both the parties. We direct the opposite party i.e. Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch, Chennai to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the compensation to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 18.1.2010 (i.e. from the date of intimation given by the opposite party funds insufficient) to till the date of payment to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 18.1.2010 to till the date of payment within six weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 9th day of February 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- 4.3.2009 - Copy of Account Statement of the complainant.
Ex.A2- 11.1.2010 - Copy of Cheque and the Return Memo.
Ex.A3- 1.3.2010 - Copy of notice to the complainant by the CMWSSB.
Ex.A4- 26.3.2010 - Copy of notice to the opposite party with AD Card.
Opposite party’s side documents: .. Nil..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
