Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

129/2013

P.Srinivasan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, - Opp.Party(s)

T.MuthuKrishnan

11 May 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.03.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  11.05.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 11^th   DAY OF MAY 2017

 

C.C.NO.129/2013

 

 

Mr.P.Srinivasan,

S/o.Pushparaj,

No.27/12, 12^th Street,

Padi Pudunagar,

Chennai – 600 101.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Ayanavaram Branch,

Chennai – 600 023.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 28.06.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : Sivasankaran, T.Muthukrishnan

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : M/s C.P.R.Kamarraj, N.Jayasri,

                                                                    C.R.Deepa

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of the Complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:  

        The Complainant states that on 06.02.2012 he has deposited his salary cheque drawn on Citi Bank, Chennai for a sum ofRs.16,392/- for collection. The Opposite Party  should send it for clearance to Citi Bank, Adyar branch and the same was returned  with an endorsement “wrongly delivered/Not drawn on us”.  The Complainant states that believing that his salary account would have been credited in his Savings Bank Account No.20061215950, he went to withdraw the amount from his account but to his utter shock, Rs.100/- was deducted from his account for the return of the above cheque due to the opponent’s negligence.  The Complainant states that the he was forced to undergo severe mental agony on seeing the amount of Rs.100/- being deducted from his account and expecting his salary of Rs.16,392/- in his  account would have been credited in his account to make his essential monthly expenses. Moreover he was not able to meet out his family expenses for that month because of the wrong committed by the respondent bank.  However they not even took any effort to rectify their mistake and for that reason the salary was not credited for a month and the petitioner had to suffer to run his family being not able to meet out his essential expenditures. The petitioner having responsibility to take care of his aged parents was unable to attend to their essential medical expenses. The petitioner in order to meet out his family commitments including that of the medical expenditures for his aged parents, took a loan of Rs.15,000/- from his friend at the rate of 5% interest. The petitioner’s salary for the month of February 2012 was credited only on 07.03.2012 that is after a month. But the respondent failed to show its responsibility and realize its mistake and deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed the Complainant for the deficiency committed by the Opposite Party and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment with cost of the Complainant.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          Originally the above Complainant was having a S.B.Account in Woods Road Branch, Chennai and when the said cheque was presented by the above Complainant in the Opposite Party’s Branch at Ayanavaram, a new cheque processing System namely “Cheque Truncation System” (CTS) was introduced. As everything was computerized, the reading of the MICR Code in cheque was also computerized. The said reading of MICR was done through the computerized Scanner which will do everything except reading the amount and the Account number in the instant case was done manually by the Opposite Party and the Bank’s name and branch was automatically read through the MICR process once the same is fed in the system. The Opposite Party came to know the same only when the said cheque was returned and that moment itself he called the above Complainant through phone and informed him about the alleged cheque return and the reasons for the same. Further requested him to come and collect the said cheque or permit the Opposite Party to represent the same. But, the above Complainant came to the Opposite Party’s bank after about a week’s time and taken back the subject cheque with him. This is what exactly happened at that time. This Opposite Party or his staff never ill treated or harassed the above Complainant and his averments to that effect are denied as false.

          3. The Complainant has stated that his February 2012 salary was credited only on 07.03.2012 is denied as wrong. Because as per the documents of the Complainant, the statement of account clearly shows that the alleged salary amount of Rs.16,485/- was received through some other cheque i.e a cheque bearing No.455. whereas the returned/disputed cheque’s number was 897429 and the amount was Rs.16,392/-. Hence, the averment of the Complainant is totally wrong. The Complainant might have presented the said cheque in some other bank and encashed soon and he has to file documents to prove the same. The Opposite Party is not solely responsible for the alleged delay of one month or more than that for the delay in encashing of his salary cheque and he has to prove the same. The offer given by the Opposite Party to present the returned cheque once again on the same day and to rectify the same was not accepted by the Opposite Party. The statement there was deficiency in service though may sound attractive yet on a closer examination of the entire facts will point out that the averment is devoid of merits. The Opposite Party reiterates that the bank did not give any false, misleading or incorrect information to CIBIL. The time taken to correct the data of the Complainant does not relate to any of the accusations in the Complaint. Hence, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dismiss the above Complaint with costs.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

The admitted case of the both the parties are that the Complainant is having savings account with the Opposite Party and he had presented his salary cheque on 6.2.2012 drawn on city bank, Chennai for a sum of Rs.16,392/- for collection with the Opposite Party and the said cheque was returned as not drawn on us and further a sum of Rs.100/- was deducted for return of the cheque.

6. The Complainant case is that the cheque presented by him was wrongly sent to Indian Bank, Adayar Branch and the same was returned with an endorsement not drawn on us on due to that a sum of Rs.100/- was deducted from his account and therefore the Opposite Party not sending the cheque for clearance City Bank and wrongly sent to Indian Bank, and sum of Rs.100/- was deducted for return of cheque is all happened due to the negligent act of the Opposite Party and there by committing deficiency in service.

7. The Opposite Party’s case is that  the cheque was sent for processing system namely Cheque Truncation System (CTS) and the reading of MICR was done through computer scanner and the said system will do everything excepting the amount and the account number of the cheque and the same was done manually and immediately on return of cheque they called the Complainant to collect the cheque or permit the Opposite Party to represent the same and only after a week’s time he had taken the cheque and therefore the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

8. According to the contention of the Opposite Party the Cheque Truncation System while passing the cheque has committed error.  The allegation of the Complainant is that the cheque was wrongly sent to Indian Bank, Adayar instead of City Bank has not been replied by the Opposite Party in the written version.  Therefore sending the cheque to a wrong bank is negligent act of the Opposite Party.  Further a sum of Rs.100/- was also deducted for cheque return charges.  Even after knowing the deduction of cheque return charge the Opposite Party had not taken any steps to reverse the said charges in the Complainant account.  Therefore, only due do the negligent act of the Opposite Party the cheque was returned and also a sum of Rs.100/- was deducted from the account of the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service. 

09. POINT NO:2

The Cheque presented by the Complainant is his salary cheque.  The said cheque was realized by Complainant after a month time and during that period the Complainant had suffering and mental agony is accepted and for the same he is entitled for compensation from the Opposite Party.  Therefore, considering the one month period of delay in encashing the cheque through the Opposite Party, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th  day of May 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated  NIL                    Account Statement

Ex.A2 dated 01.03.2012                   Legal Notice by Complainant

Ex.A3 dated 02.03.2012                   Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A4 dated 14.03.2012                   Reply Notice by the Opposite Party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ……… NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT