Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/24/2019

N.C.S.M.Prasad, S/o. Late N.Subbarao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

In person

08 Aug 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 30.01.2019

Order Date:08.08.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.24/2019

 

 

Between

 

 

Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad,

Aged 55 years,

S/o. late. N.Subba Rao,

D.No.581, Andhra Bank Lane,

Balaji Colony,

Tirupati – 517 502.                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Annamaiah Circle Branch,

Tirupati – 517 502.                                                                          …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 08.08.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad, party-in-person for complainant, and Sri.K.Ramesh Babu, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, praying for direction to the opposite party, to refund Rs.177/- collected towards cheque return charges on 29.11.2018 with interest at 24% p.a. from that date, to pay Rs.4,90,000/- towards compensation for undergoing mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, and to pay Rs.8,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

            2.  The brief facts of the complaint are:- The complainant is maintaining joint Savings Bank Account along with his wife bearing account No.32645054514 with opposite party since 08.11.2012. He issued cheque bearing No.515505 dt:28.11.2018 for Rs.90,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Tirupati, for clearing on 28.11.2018, and the said cheque was returned unpaid by Bank of Baroda, Tirupati, on 29.11.2018, with reason “present in proper zone”. The opposite party has sent SMS to him on 29.11.2018, stating that Cheque No.515505 for Rs.90,000/- issued from account No.32645054514 dishonoured.  Charges Rs.177/- deducted from his account. The cheque was returned unpaid by Bank of Baroda, Tirupati, as the opposite party has not presented the cheque for collection in proper zone in clearing system, and it is not the fault of complainant, as such the opposite party ought not have debited Rs.177/- to his account towards cheque returned charges in violation of RBI guidelines. As per RBI guidelines, cheque returned charges should not be deducted from the customer, if the cheque is not drawn on collecting banker. Due to dishonor of cheque, he could not get the cheque amount in time, and thereby he could not pay the tuition fee of Rs.1,63,500/- and hostel fee of Rs.21,000/- for his son, who is studying LLB (Hons) in National Law University, Delhi, within stipulated time on 30.11.2018, and his son was punished with penalty of Rs.6,000/- by the management of National Law University, for no fault of his son. He got issued legal notice dt:07.01.2019 to opposite party by registered post with acknowledgement due vide postal receipt No.RN599142779IN, dt:10.01.2019 and the same was acknowledged by the opposite party on 11.01.2019, but there was no reply from the opposite party. Hence, the complaint.

            3. Opposite party filed the written version contending as follows – The allegations made in the complaint are misconceived and untenable. It is admitted that the complainant is having joint Savings Bank Account along with his wife, bearing account No.32645054514, with the opposite party since 08.11.2012. That the complainant deposited cheque bearing No.515505 dt:28.11.2018 for Rs.90,000/-drawn on Bank of Baroda, Tirupati Main Branch, for clearing and the same was returned unpaid by Bank of Baroda, Tirupati Main Branch, on 29.11.2018 with endorsement “present in proper zone” and that opposite party has sent SMS to the complainant on 29.11.2018 stating that cheque No.515505 for Rs.90,000/- was dishonoured. It is also admitted that opposite party has not presented the cheque for collection in proper zone in clearing system, thereby the cheque was returned unpaid by Bank of Baroda, Tirupati Main Branch. But the allegations made in Para.4 and 5 of the complaint are denied. It is further denied that the complainant was put to inconvenience, as he could not get the cheque amount in time, to pay the tuition fee of Rs.1,63,500/- and hostel fee of Rs.21,000/- of his son in time i.e. on or before 30.11.2018, and for that his son was punished with penalty of Rs.6,000/- by the management of National Law University, Delhi, for no fault of his son. It is denied that opposite party has violated the rules and guidelines of RBI in debiting Rs.177/- from his account. It is admitted that complainant issued legal notice dt:07.01.2019 to opposite party and the same was acknowledged by the bank. It is stated that complainant presented Non-CTS cheque bearing No.515505 dt:28.11.2018 for Rs.90,000/- for clearing, and the cheque was presented for clearance on 29.11.2018, but the payee bank i.e. Bank of Baroda, Tirupati, has returned the cheque with the reason “present in proper zone”. As per the Bank’s cheque collection policy, if a Non-CTS cheque is returned with the reason “present in proper zone” the same has to be represented in the next special clearing session. Since the complainant received SMS, he has collected the returned cheque on 30.11.2018, without giving chance to the bank authorities to represent the same in the next special clearing session. Hence, the opposite party bank authorities are not at all fault in their role as collecting Banker. If the complainant had not collected the returned cheque, the same could have been presented in the next special clearing session by the opposite party bank authorities and the cheque would have been honoured. With regard to the deduction of Rs.177/- towards cheque return charges, the same is not deducted manually. As per the progarmme, the system will deduct that amount, as and when the cheques were returned. Hence, the bank authorities also not at all liable for deduction of the amount. The complainant is not at all entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            4.  Complainant filed the chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of opposite party, the Branch Manager has filed the affidavit as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the complaint?

            6.  Point:-  The contention of the complainant is that opposite party has not presented the cheque for collection in proper zone in clearing system, and as such cheque was returned unpaid by Bank of Baroda, Tirupati Branch, with reason “present in proper zone” and it is not the fault of the complainant, and purely it is the fault of the opposite party. It is further contended that as per RBI guidelines, opposite party ought not to have deducted Rs.177/- from his account towards cheque return charges, as the customer is not at fault. It is further contended that due to dishonor of cheque, the complainant could not get the cheque amount in time, in order to pay tuition fee and hostel fee of his son, who is studying in National Law University, Delhi, on or before 30.11.2018, for which his son was penalized by the University with penalty of Rs.6,000/-. It is therefore contended that this complaint may be allowed by granting the reliefs sought by the complainant.

            7.  On the other hand, opposite party argued that complainant has presented Non-CTS cheque bearing No.515505 dt:28.11.2018 for Rs.90,000/- for clearance, and the said cheque was presented for clearance by opposite party on 29.11.2018, and the payee bank i.e. Bank of Baroda, has returned the cheque with the reason “present in proper zone”, and as per bank’s cheque collection policy, if a Non-CTS cheque is returned with the reason “present in proper zone”, the same has to be represented in the next special clearing session. But as the complainant has taken the returned cheque on 30.11.2018, there was no opportunity for the opposite party bank, to present the cheque again in the next clearing session and as such complainant is to be blamed. The complainant cannot blame the opposite party by contending that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

            8.  It is an admitted fact that Rs.177/- was collected towards cheque returned charges from the joint account of the complainant. Ex.A1 is bank passbook front page showing that complainant is having joint account with his wife. The cheque was returned with endorsement “37-Present in proper zone” and the same is proved by marking Ex.A2, which is returned Memo along with returned Cheque. The Statement of Account is marked as Ex.A3, which shows that cheque returned charges of Rs.177/- was deducted from the joint account of the complainant. Ex.A4 is updated list of service charges, and at page.4, item.27, shows that as per RBI guidelines, the customer is not be charged for cheque returned charges, when the customer is not at fault. Obviously this document is filed to show that complainant is not at fault and the cheque returned charges ought not to have collected from him by the opposite party bank. Ex.A5 is notice dt:07.01.2019 issued by the complainant to opposite party bank, alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank, for not presenting the cheque for collection in proper zone in clearing system resulting in return of cheque unpaid by Bank of Baroda, Tirupati main branch with the reason “present in proper zone”. Ex.A6 is acknowledgement card showing receipt of the notice by opposite party. Ex.A7 is Annexure-D of SBI Cheque Collection Policy downloaded from SBI website dt:14.05.2019. Reason for return of the cheques are mentioned in Ex.A7. On the other hand, opposite party filed Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is cheque collection policy of SBI. Ex.B2 is arrangement for collection of domestic cheques.

            9.  It has been the argument of opposite party counsel that the complainant collected the returned cheque on 30.11.2018, and thereby the bank authorities had no opportunity to represent the cheque in the next special clearing session, and as such opposite party bank cannot be blamed, and the fault lies with the complainant. The complainant is seeking direction to refund Rs.177/- being collected towards cheque returned charges in violation of RBI guidelines. For this, opposite party at para.11 of the written version stated that as per the programme generated in the system, the said amount has deducted towards cheque return charges and the same is not deducted manually. This contention of the opposite party is not tenable. The bank, as institution is liable for any lapses in catering to the needs of the customer. The bank cannot throw blame on the system. It is clear from Ex.A4, which is updated list of service charges that, customer is not to be charged for cheque return charges, if he is not at fault. Hence, deduction of Rs.177/- from joint account of the complainant by the bank is in clear violation of RBI guidelines, as the cheque was returned with endorsement “present in proper zone”, which is no fault of the customer. We hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank in deducting Rs.177/- towards cheque return charges from complainant’s S.B.Account.

            10. The complainant is seeking compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- from the opposite party, as he could not pay tuition fee and hostel fee of his son, who is studying in National Law University, Delhi, in time, as he could not get the cheque amount due to dishonor of the cheque. The opposite party counsel argued that had the complainant not taken the cheque, opposite party bank could have presented it in proper zone and cheque would have been encashed immediately, and as the complainant has taken away the returned cheque, there was no opportunity for the opposite party bank to present the cheque again. This contention of the opposite party counsel has to be accepted, in view of the admitted fact that complainant had taken the returned cheque, when it was returned with endorsement “present in proper zone”. The question is opposite party ought to have presented the cheque in proper zone at the first instance. But the opposite party failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. However, the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to show that his son is studying in National Law University, Delhi, and that he had to pay tuition fee as well as hostel fee by the end of 30.11.2018. Hence, the contention of complainant that he underwent mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank cannot be accepted. Exs.B1 and B2 pertains to cheque collection policy and arrangements for collection of domestic cheques downloaded from SBI Corporate Website. There is no dispute about the cheque collection policy in respect of Non-CTS cheques. Admittedly, in the present case the cheque is Non-CTS cheque. But the deficiency of service is with regard to collecting cheque return charges from the customer, even though he is not liable for the same. Hence, we hold from the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of documentary evidence produced by the complainant, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in deducting Rs.177/- from the joint account of the complainant, though he is not liable for the same. Accordingly, this complaint is allowed.                               

            11.  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to credit Rs.177/- (Rupees one hundred and seventy seven only) collected from the complainant into his account with interest at 9% p.a. from 29.11.2018, till crediting the amount in the account of the complainant, and further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation, in addition to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only)  towards costs of the complaint. Six (6) weeks time is granted to the opposite party to comply the order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.2,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 8^th day of August, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                             

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

PW-1: Sri N.C.S.M. Prasad (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri R. Dhanagopal (Chief affidavit filed).

 

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Front page of Savings Bank Pass Book of SBI, Annamaiah Circle Branch (Branch Code: 10106, Date of Issue: 08.11.2012), Tirupati (Self attested photo copy).
	True copy of RETURN MEMO REPORT issued by SBI, Annamaiah Circle Branch (Branch Code: 10106), Tirupati regarding “unable to obtain payment of the enclosed Cheque/Draft No.515505 for Rs. 90,000/- drawn on BANK OF BARODA-ATPAR BRANCH”.Dt: 29.11.2018.
	Self attested photo copy of STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT obtained through net banking (SBI, Annamaiah Circle Branch , Branch Code: 10106, Tirupati) from 01.11.2018 to 12.01.2019.
	Self attested photo copy of UPDATED LIST OF SERVICE CHARGES downloaded from SBI website. (WEF 01.04.2017) updated up to 24.07.2017)
	Notice issued to the opposite party (Office copy). Dt: 07.01.2019.
	Postal Acknowledgement Card. Dt: 11.01.2019.
	Annexure-D of SBI Cheque Collection Policy downloaded from SBI website    (Photo copy). Dt: 14.05.2019.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of CHEQUE COLLECTION POLICY downloaded from SBI Corporate Website.
	Photo copy of ARRANGEMENTS FOR COLLECTION OF DOMESTIC downloaded from SBI Corporate Website.

 

    

 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-        

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

     

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

     

              

    Copies to:- 1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.