By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

 

            Complainant had availed a personal loan for Rs.2.50,000/- from the opposite party. The monthly instalment payment was Rs.6575/- per month. Opposite party had collected 36 signed cheques from the complainant at the time of disbursement of the loan. Opposite party presented these cheques for collection every month. As a part of the loan transaction the opposite party had collected some blank signed papers also from the complainant. There was no default to the monthly repayment from complainant’s part. In May 2004 the opposite party informed the complainant that as per banking regulation implemented by the Government the cheques given to the opposite party had to be substituted with MICR cheques as per the new banking policy. Complainant immediately furnished MICR cheques of Bank of India and requested opposite party to return the old cheques. Opposite party did not return the old cheques stating that the old cheques were sent to the opposite party’s head office at Mumbai. Opposite party had retained both the old signed cheques and also substituted new MICR cheques. To the shock and surprise of the complainant the opposite parties started presenting the old cheques as well as the substituted cheques every month for collection of monthly instalments. The old cheques were dishonoured. Opposite party as well as the Bank of India charged for the returned cheques. Bank of India charged Rs.55/- and opposite party charged Rs.400/- for the return cheques. Complainant intimated this disparity to the opposite party’s bank, but opposite party did not take any remedial measures. The negligent and deficient act of the opposite parties caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. The opposite party was conducting unfair banking practices. The complainant was unnecessarily made liable to pay return charges which caused loss of reputation and mental agony to the complainant. The opposite party also refused to furnish the loan account statement. The complainant is alleging negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of opposite party and has filed the petition seeking relief.

 

            Opposite party submitted a version denying the allegations in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted. The opposite party has sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. The repayment instalments equated to Rs.6575/- within 36 months. At the time of granting the loan the complainant issued 36 post dated non-MICR cheques. In May 2004 the opposite party as a part of new banking regulation directed the complainant to substitute the non-MICR cheques with MICR cheques. Complainant substituted non-MICR cheques with MICR cheques for the period from July 2004 to April 2005. The allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has charged Rs.400/- as cheque dishonour charge and Rs.500/- for loan account statement is not correct. There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

 

            The points for consideration are (1) whether there was any deficiency on the part of opposite party? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief, if so what is the  quantum?

 

            The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked on complainant’s side. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 marked on opposite party’s side.

 

Point NO.1:-

 

            The case of the complainant is that he had taken a loan from the opposite party. While taking the loan complainant had provided 36 signed cheques as monthly instalment payment of Rs.6575/- per month to opposite paprty. Opposite party had presented these cheques monthly for collection. In May 2004 opposite party had directed the complainant to substitute the signed non-MICR cheques with MICR cheques as per the new banking policy. The complainant had substituted with MICR cheques and requested the opposite party to return back the old cheques. But the opposite party had presented both the cheques. The non-MICR cheques bounced for which both banks the Bank of India where complainant had the account HDFC bank from where the complainant had taken the loan started taking cheques returned charges. Complainant had intimated this fact to the opposite party bank. But opposite party did not take any remedial measures. The complainant was made unfairly liable for the lack of communication and co-ordination between the branch of the opposite party. Opposite party has denied all the averments. But during the evidence RW1 has stated in his deposition Page-3 that non-MICR and MICR cheques were collected from the complainant and opposite party had taken steps to return back the non MICR cheques. Opposite party has also admitted that due to clcerical mistake opposite party had presented both the cheques even after receiving Lawyer notice from the complainant. According to the opposite party this happened because of the mistake while processing. From the evidence and documents it can be seen that the complainant had suffered due to the negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party had caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant because of opposite party’s deficiency. Ext.A4 clearly shows that about 7 non-MICR cheques were presented by the opposite party bank even after the complainant had substituted MICR cheques. Complainant also has a case that when he had requested the opposite party to give the account statement opposite party have not responded. This is definitely deficiency in service because the customers should be promptly given the accounts statement. Opposite party has informed that they had issued by post but they have not taken any steps to show that they were promptly giving accounts statement to the complainant. Prima-facie the Forum has found deficiency and negligence on the part of opposite party. Point No.1 is thus proved.

 

Point No.2:

 

            As the Forum has found negligence on the part of opposite party we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief. The complainant has sought for compensation, which according to us is of an exorbitant amount. But we are of the opinion that opposite party should be penalized for doing such negligent act as they are doing banking service and accepting large amount as interest from their customers.

 

            In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 13th day of May 2010.

 

            SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER                       SD/- MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Complainant’s Account statement maintained by Bank of India.

A2. Copy of Lawyer notice dt. 22-1-2005 .

A3. Postal Acknowledgement.

A4. Letter dt. 15-3-2006.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1. Account Statement from 26/10/2000 to 26/10/2005.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Dr. Suhanesh Haridas (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1. Sojinkumar, Asst. Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., West Nadakkavu, Calicut.

 

                                                                        Sd/- President

            // True copy //

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.