By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

          The Complainant has approached this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, imputing deficiency  in service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.

          2. Facts of the case in brief:-  Complainant  is an account holder of the  1^st  Opposite party bank.  On 31.08.2021,  a cheque amounting  to Rs.5,00,000/-  drawn on Canara Bank,  Sulthan Bathery Branch,  issued by  Jamshinabind,  was presented  for collection in  1^st  Opposite Party Bank.  A receipt for the same was also issued for this  by the 1^st  Opposite Party Bank.  But  because of the deficiency in service of the 1^st  Opposite Party Bank, the cheque was returned as “instrument out dated  stale”  on 07.12.2021 for which an amount of Rs.177/- was  charged from the account of the Complainant as collection charges.  The cheque presented on 30.11.2021 by the Complainant was sent by the 1^st  Opposite party for collection only on 07.12.2021  and on that day itself the cheque was returned.  If the cheque had been presented by the  1^st  Opposite Party for collection, on the same day itself,  the Complainant could get the amount.  This has caused financial and other loss and injury to the Complainant and the Complainant’s husband could not pay amount for business abroad which has resulted in loss of business.  A lawyer notice was sent to the Opposite Party on 11.12.2021, which  was received  by the Opposite party on 14.12.2021.  But the  Opposite Party had not resolved the grievance of the Complainant.  This is irresponsibility and deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party,  which has resulted in mental agony of the Complainant.  Hence, this complaint with the following prayers:

1.  To direct the Opposite Party Bank to  pay the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
2. To direct the Opposite Party Bank  to pay Rs.50,000/-  for mental agony.
3. To direct the Opposite Party Bank to pay Rs.50,000/-  towards compensation for deficiency  in service and
4. To direct the Opposite party bank to pay Rs.50,000/-  towards cost of this Complainant.

3. The complaint was registered and summons were issued to the Opposite

Parties.  The 1^st  Opposite Party appeared and filed version.  2^nd  Opposite Party adopted the version of  1^st  Opposite Party,  the contents of  which are as follows:-

  The Opposite party denied the entire allegations and averments in the complaint as the same are false, baseless and against truth. The Opposite Party denied the averments that there was deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party and that due to the same, the cheque submitted by the Complainant for collection was returned with an endorsement “ Instrument out dated Stale” and as a result the Complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- and suffered mental agony etc. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party submitted that clearing of cheques is being done through Cheque Truncation System (CTS), a cheque clearing system established by the Reserve Bank of India. As per the relevant procedure relating to the same, the cheques received at a branch on a particular day, before the specified cut off time, will be sent for clearance through the CTS system only. The clearing / processing / payment of such cheques will be done in the CTS system on the next day and the cheques will be cleared by the drawee bank only if the cheque is valid on the said day. In the above case, the Complainant had deposited  the cheque dated 31.8.2021 of Canara Bank, Sulthan Bathery for collection only on 30/11/2021 at Opposite Party branch, which was the last day of the validity of the instrument. Apart from the same, the cheque was also submitted on the said day at 3.14 PM, which was also after the prescribed cut off time of 3 PM fixed for sending for clearing and hence Opposite Party could not send the same for clearing on 30.11.2021. The Opposite Party  further said that even if the cheque was sent for clearing on 30.11.2021, the cheque would have been dishonoured, for the reason mentioned above, as the cheque would have crossed the validity date on the next day, on which date the cheque would have been processed for payment in the CTS system. Anyhow, as the cheque was submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party Branch, the Opposite Party had subsequently sent the cheque for clearing and had already intimated to the Complainant that the cheque had been returned for the reasons mentioned above. The complainant had, for reasons best known to her, delayed the submission of the cheque and had submitted the same on last date of validity and that too after the specified cut off time. Hence the Opposite is in no way responsible for the return of the cheque.   The statement of the Complainant that the complainant had suffered loss of an amount of Rs 5 Lakhs on account of return of the cheque is without any merits. In this regard as already mentioned above, the Opposite Party is in no way responsible for the return of the cheque. Further the return of the cheque also does not bar the legal remedies available to the Complainant for recovery of the amount from the person who had issued the cheque, as the Complainant could take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The remedy of getting the cheque re-validated / getting a fresh cheque issued was also available to the Complainant. The Opposite Party also stated that no mental agony has been caused to the complainant as the return of the cheque has occurred on account of the lapse on the part of the Complainant herself and not due to any reasons which could be attributed to the Opposite Party. Regarding the collection charges of Rs.177/- levied the same is in accordance with the service charges which the Bank is entitled to levy. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. The attempt of the Complainant is an experimental one to extract money from the Opposite Party that too for the mistake of the Complainant herself to produce the cheque in time. The Opposite Party is unnecessarily dragged to litigation. Hence the Complainant is liable to pay cost and compensatory cost to the Opposite Party. Hence, Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

4. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant, Exts.A1 to A5 marked from her side  and she was examined as PW1.  Chief affidavit was filed for the Opposite Parties and Exts.B1, B2 and  MO1 were marked from the side of the Opposite Parties.  The Senior Manager of Canara Bank, Bathery Branch was examined as OPW1 and the Field Officer of State Bank of India,  Chulliyode Branch was examined as OPW2.  Ext.A1 is the  copy of the cheque issued in favour of the Complainant,  Ext.A2 is the  Return Memo Report issued by the Opposite Party bank;  Ext.A3 is the counter foil pay in slip issued by the Opposite Party bank;  Ext.A4 is the copy of  Lawyer notice (registered notice) issued by the Complainant on 21.12.2021  to the Opposite Party bank & Ext.A5 is the  copy of the acknowledgment card.  Ext.B1 is the reply notice  forwarded by the Opposite Party bank (lawyer notice)  on 07.01.2022 to the Complainant;  Ext.B2 is the postal receipt for the  notice and MO1 is the  pen drive produced by  Opposite Party bank and Ext.X1 series is the  account statement produced by  OPW2. 

5. On the basis of the complaint, version, affidavit,  documents marked and the oral depositions of the  parties to the Complainant,  Commission raised the following points for consideration.

1.  Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the  Opposite Parties?
2. If so  relief and cost,  the quantum of compensation and cost?

6. Point No.1:-  The allegation of the Complainant  is that she had deposited

a cheque amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-  in the Opposite Party Bank on 30.11.2021,  but it was sent by the Opposite Party for collection only on 07.12.2021 and on that day itself the cheque was returned.  If the Opposite Party had sent the cheque on the same day itself when  it was deposited,  the Complainant could  get the  amount.  This has caused loss and inconvenience to the Complainant which is deficiency in service  from the part of the Opposite Party for which the Opposite Party bank is liable.  While the  contentions of the Opposite Parties are that  (1)  The Complainant had deposited the cheque dated 31.08.2021 of  Canara Bank,  Sulthan Bathery for collection only on 30.11.2021 at the Opposite Party branch,  which was the last day of the validity of the instrument.   (2)  The cheque was  also submitted on the said day at 3.14 PM which was also after the prescribed   out off time  of 3 PM fixed for sending.   (3) Even if the cheque was sent for clearing on 31.11.2021, the cheque would have been dishonoured as the cheque would have been crossed the validity date on the next day, on which date the cheque would have been processed for payment in the CTS system.  (4)  The Complainant delayed the submission of the cheque and had submitted the same on the last date of validity and that too after the  specified cut of time.   Other contentions of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite Parties and contented that there has been no deficiency in service from the  part of the Opposite Party bank.

          7. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the cheque was drawn on 31.08.2021.  It is also evident that the  cheque was valid for three  months only, from the date of the instrument.  It is evident from Ext.A3 that the cheque was deposited by the Complainant on 30.11.2021,  the last date of validity of the cheque.  It  does not mean that the Complainant cannot deposit the cheque on the  last date of validity of the instrument.  Here,  to decide the merit of the case,  the following questions are to be answered and cleared.

1. Whether the Complainant had deposited the cheque on the last date of validity, before the cut of time.?
2. If so,  Whether the Opposite Party had sent it for clearance on the same day to the drawee bank?

Question No.(i)  In the oral deposition of the Complainant as PW1,  she has stated that the cheque was presented to the Opposite Party bank at  3.10 PM on the last date of validity of the cheque.  But  in  oral deposition, OPW2 has stated that “adp-]Sn  t\m«o-kn 3.15 Dw Version  3.14 BWv F¶pw      ]d-ªn-cn-¡p-¶Xv icn-bmWv”. From  the above deposition of PW1 and OPW2 it can be seen that the cheque was deposited in the bank at or before  3.15 PM.  In oral examination, OPW2 has stated that “‘10’ apX ‘4’ hsc-bmWv working hours” .  On  the  other hand,  OPW1 in chief examination has deposed that “sN¡v transaction CTS clearance BWv.  aq¶v aWn hsctb clearance \S-¯q.  AXp Ign-ªm \S-¯m³ ]änÔ. On going through the  Web- site Bank India.Org, it is seen stated that “you should know that the cheques that are deposited at the counters of the bank branch,  and the cheques that are deposited in the drop box within the bank branch premises before the designation cut off time”  will be  ensured to be sent for clearance on the same day.  It is also seen stated that “In a manner conforming with CTS,  once a  cheque is deposited by you at your branch,  State Bank  of India will manage to scan it and send its digital image to  Reserve Bank of India.  Then Reserve Bank of India will  pick up the funds from the drawee bank and transfer them to State Bank of India.  So  that they may be deposited  into your account.  This entire process is accessible all day and night”.     As per Reserve Bank of India guidelines it is also taken noted that the cut off time  for transaction in bank fixed to be 3.30 PM.  In oral evidence OPW2 has deposed that “10 apX 4 hsc-bmWv working hours.............., validity Dff sN¡v am{Xta kzo-I-cn-¡m³ ]mSp-Åq..............,  C¶p In«p¶ sN¡v C¶p Xs¶ Ab-¡mw............... So from the above discussion it is answered that the Complainant was at liberty and duty bound to deposit  the cheque for collection even on the last date of validity of the cheque as the Complainant had deposited the cheque before the cut of time of 3.30 PM, in the bank.  Question number (i) is answered thus.

Question No.(ii):-  As per  CTS, the Opposite Party Bank was duty bound to forward the cheque presented by the Complainant on 30.11.2021 itself for clearing as CTS facility was available through out day and night.  In oral deposition, OPW2 has admitted that “Cu sN¡v    image base Bbn Bb¨Xv F¶v ]d-ªm Adn-bn-Ã.  Ext.A2 shown to the  witness. sN¡v  return memo BWv,     date 07.12.2021 BWv, sN¡v  receive sNbvXn«v C{Xbpw Znhkw ssI¿n sh¨n-cp-¶Xv deficiency  of service    BsW¶v ]d-ªm BbXv _m¦nsâ D¯-c-hm-Zn-¯-amWv”.  So it is very clear  that, though the Opposite Party bank was duty bound to send the cheque on 30.11.2021 the date of depositing it by the  Complainant, the Opposite Party bank failed to send it for collection under CTS, on the same day, instead they sent it for collection only on 07.12.2021. Question number 2 is answered this way.

8. So there has been  deficiency  in service from the part of the Opposite Party bank.  Hence, point number 1 is proved against the Opposite Party bank.

          9. Point No.2:-  It is proved that the Opposite Party bank failed to send the cheque for collection on the same day of its deposit by the Complainant.  That does not mean that the Complainant has lost the entire amount of the cheque amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- . She has the right and liberty to resort other remedies for recovery of the amount of  Rs.5,00,000/- .  She had the right to get the cheque revalidated;  she had the right to get a fresh cheque from the  drawer or she had the right to receive the amount of the cheque in cash returning the dishonoured cheque etc.   So,  the contention of the Complainant that she lost  Rs.5,00,000/-  the amount of the dishonoured cheque, cannot be admitted.  So, she has no right to get any amount in respect of the amount of cheque, from the Opposite Party Bank.  But,  she has the right to be indemnified by way of compensation for deficiency in service and cost of this  complaint from the Opposite Party Bank, as the Complainant  has caused  many inconvenience, financial, mental and other hardships etc. She  could not even give money for the business of her husband abroad resulting  in loss of his  business,  as  narrated by the Complainant.  So, we are of the view  that the Complainant is reasonably to be compensated for the negligent, irresponsible  and deficient  service from the part of the  1^st  Opposite Party Bank. But the  amount of compensation for deficiency in service,  compensation for  mental agony and cost of the complaint claimed are seen exorbitant.  In our view it is reasonable to grant her  Rs.25,000/-  for deficiency in service,  Rs.15,000/-   for mental agony and Rs.7,500/-  for cost of this complaint.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party Bank is directed to

1.  Pay Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service of the Opposite Party Bank.
2. Pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards mental agony of the Complainant and
3. Pay  Rs.7,500/-  (Rupees Seven thousand Five hundred only) towards cost of this complaint.

The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainant within one month from

the date of receipt of this order,  failing which the amount will carry interest  at the rate of 9% per annum.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the  10^th  day of August 2023.       

Date of filing:29.12.2021.

                                                                   PRESIDENT    :  Sd/-

                                                                    MEMBER        :     Sd/-                            

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.           Safiya. M. Koya                       Complainant.                          

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1.        T.V. Saji.                                  Senior Manager, Canara Bank,

                                                                        S. Bathery.

OPW2.        Johnson.                                  Banker.                          

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.      Copy of Cheque No.817900.                             dt:31.08.2021.

A2.        Copy of  Return Memo Report.               dt:07.12.2021.

A3.        Copy of  Pay in Slip.                               dt:30.11.2021.

A4.        Copy of Lawyer Notice.                          dt:11.12.2021.

A5.        Copy of Acknowledgment.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1.         Copy of Notice.                                               dt:07.01.2022.

B2.         Postal Receipt.                   

MO1.      Pen drive.