Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/38/2017

N.C. Nagaraju - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayanarao

10 Jan 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:11.04.2017

DISPOSED      ON:10.01.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 38/2017

 

DATED:  10^th JANUARY 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT	N.C. Nagaraj, Retd. Special Assistant, R/o 11th Cross, Near Pollution Control Board, IUDP Layout,Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri. C.M. Veeranna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, JCR Extension Branch, JCR Main Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards deficiency, dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation with interest and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is having current account with the OP bearing No.64132414427.  It is submitted that, he had an RID for Rs.1,36,111/- and OP pleased to sanction the OD limit of Rs.1,02,000/- against the captioned RID vide current account No.64132414427 and its validity starts from 17.11.2016 to 15.12.2017.  Apart from this, the complainant has the credit balance of Rs.45,392/- in his current account on 16.02.2017  as per statement of account dated 27.02.2017.  It is further submitted that the complainant has issued a crossed account payee cheque bearing No.430983 on 15.02.2017 for Rs.83,006/- to the Section Officer, BESCOM, Hireguntanur Branch, Chitradurga Taluk, the same has been from the Canara Bank with an endorsement that funds insufficient funds.  It clearly goes to show that there is a deficiency of service and dereliction of duties rendered and unfair trade practice to their esteemed customer by the OP Bank.  The complainant approached the OP Bank and enquired the same but the Manager of the Bank has given evasive reply and not behaved properly.  Further it is submitted that the complainant is having high reputation in the society and with relatives.  Due to the act of dishonoring of cheque, his name and fame has been tarnished and spoiled in the society.  Now the complainant is suffering from mental agony, pain from dishonoring of cheque.  For all these act, the OP has to compensate the same.  Due to dishonor of cheque, the BESCOM authorities have fined heavily and they have informed that the complainant’s cheque will not be executed for a period of six months.  The Bank has charged Rs.287.50 for dishonor of cheque even though for no faulut on the part of complainant.  Finally, the complainant has approached the OP and further enquired about dishonor of cheque.  But the Assistant Manager of the OP Bank has given evasive reply and not behaved in a proper way and it clearly goes to show that the deficiency in service in discharging their duties with the customers.  From this act, the complainant has incurred heavy loss of money, loss of time, loss of reputation in the society.  For all this the OP Bank Manager is held liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 09.02.2017 when the legal notice has been duly served to the OP.  After service of the legal notice, the OP has not turned up to attend the same and failed to compensate the complainant which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

3.     After service of notice to the OP, one Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed version stating that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed limine.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The averments made in para 2 to 6 are denied s false.  The complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Some contents in para 2 to 4 are true.  It is submitted that, the OP has informed the facts of dishonor of cheque to the complainant and the complainant was convinced the reason of dishonor though he has sent the legal notice unnecessarily and also filed this complaint only to harass the OP.  Non reply of legal notice by the OP is deeply regretted since the complainant has assured the OP that he will not file any complaint against the OP.  The complainant has suppressed the very material facts.  It is further submitted that there is over OD of Rs.93,000/- on RID of Rs.1,00,000/- only, the said OD was given to the complainant on 14.12.2015.  Validity of the said OD is only one year and then the complainant shall have to give written request to the OP for renewal of the same for further period.  The OD limit was expired on 14.12.2016 since the complainant has not given any request to the OP to get renewal of the same for further period from 14.12.2016.  The OP has renewed only on request of the complainant.  In view of the non-giving of the request, the complainant cannot get any renewal of the OD.  It is further submitted that, there was no credit balance of Rs.83,006/- in the current account of the complainant as on 15.02.2017 or 18.02.2017.  But the complainant has issued alleged cheque to BESCOM on 15.02.2017 for Rs.83,006/-.  The OP has presented the said cheque for clearance on 18.02.2017.  But on that day, there was only credit balance of Rs.45,392/- in the current account of the complainant.  The cheque amount was of Rs.83,006/-.  The cheque was returned due to insufficient funds in the account of the complainant current account.  On this ground only, the cheque was returned and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.           

4.     Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-3 were got marked and closed his side.   OP has examined one Sri.S.H. Rajanna, the Branch Manager and relied on documents         Ex.B-1 and closed its side. 

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service for encashment of the cheque presented by the complainant?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- In Negative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant is having current account with the OP bearing No.64132414427 and had a RID for Rs.1,36,111/-.  The OP Bank pleased to sanction OD limit of Rs.1,02,000/- against captioned RID vide current account and its validity starts from 17.11.2016 to 15.12.2017.  Apart from this, complainant has the credit balance of Rs.45,392/- as on 16.02.2017 as per statement of account dated 27.02.2017.  The complainant has issued a cheque bearing No.430983 for Rs.83,006/- through his current account on 15.02.2017 to the Section Officer, BESCOM, Hireguntanur Branch, Chitradurga.  The BESCOM authority have presented the cheque through his account i.e., Canara Bank, Chitradurga, the same has send to the OP Bank for encashment.  By that time, the OP has send the same to the Canara Bank and stated that, the funds in the account of the complainant is less than the cheque amount.  On this ground, the OP Bank has send the cheque to the Canara Bank and issued the memo stating that, the funds in the current account of the complainant is insufficient.  But the complainant says that, he is having OD facility in the current account.  But according to the OP, the complainant has lost his current on 14.12.2016 and after that, the complainant has not issued any letter to the OP Bank to renew the same for further period.  At that time of issue of the cheque by the complainant, the funds in his account is only for Rs.45,392/- as per the Ex.B-1 produced by the OP.  But the cheque amount was of Rs,83,006/-.  On this ground the OP has sent back the cheque presented by the complainant stating that the funds insufficient.  But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has applied for renewal of OD for further period.  According to the OP, there is a procedure for applying for the OD facility for one or two years.  According to the documents produced by the OP, the OP has not committed any deficiency or unfair trade practice.  As per Ex.B-1 the complainant is having only Rs.45,392/- on 18.02.2017.  The complainant has issued a cheque on 15.02.2017 in favour of the BESCOM, Chitiradurga, the same has been send by the Canara Bank for encashment to the OP Bank on 18.02.2017, on 18.02.2017, the complainant is having less amount in his current account.  Hence, the OP has not committed any mistake in this case.       

9.   We have gone through the entire documents, affidavit, written arguments, version and exhibits filed by both parties.  In this case, the complainant is having current account in the OP Bank and the complainant has issued cheque for Rs.83,006/- to the BESCOM authority dated 15.02.2017.  BESCOM authority has presented the same cheque through Canara Bank, Chitradurga.  The Canara Bank has send the same to the OP Bank for encashment.  On the date of presentation of the cheque, the complainant has no sufficient amount in his account for encashment.  Ex.B-1 i.e., account extract produced by the OP clearly shows that, on 15.02.2017 to 18.02.2017 the complainant is having Rs.45,392/- in his account i.e., less by cheque amount for Rs.83,006/-.  The OP has send the memo to the complainant stating that, he is not having sufficient amount in his account.  As per the exhibits produced by the complainant and OP which clearly shows that the complainant is not having sufficient balance in his account.     Hence, we come to the conclusion that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.   Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly negative to the complainant.

 

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No costs.

          (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 10/01/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

 

                                     

          MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- S.H. Rajanna, the Branch Manager by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Statement of account from 01.11.2016 to 27.02.2017
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 09.03.2017
03	Ex.A-3:-	Postal Acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Statement of account 01.12.2016 to 21.12.2017

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**