By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-
Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is the account holder of opposite party bank by account No.67079354076. The complainant has issued a cheque to M/s Sundaram Finance Limited for an amount of Rs.5,485/- dated 10.12.2011. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited presented the cheque and the service branch of opposite party at Mumbai returned the cheque with an endorsement “funds insufficient” to M/s Sundaram Finance Limited. The Sundaram Fianance informed the above fact to the complainant in turn the complainant collected the amount and remitted to Sundaram Finance Limited. But on the particular day an amount of Rs.34,641/- was in the account of the complainant, that fact bring to the notice of the opposite party but the opposite party not cared the grievances of the complainant. The act of the opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence he prayed to give direction to the opposite party to give Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.
2. The opposite party appeared and filed their version. In the version they admitted that an inadvertent omission happened at the hands of the officials at Mumbai service branch of opposite party. Where the transactions per day was so huge unlike any rural areas. It evidenced that even after dishonor, the petitioner had acted very quickly and made arrangements for payment of installments. But upon knowing about the in advertant omission the officials of HSBC bank were contacted in order to advice them for representation who informed that cheque was returned immediately with no time to reconsider the same and honor the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1:- To prove the complainant's case he has filed his chief affidavit in addition to the complaint. He also produced Exts.A1 to A3 documents. Ext.A1 is the original cheque dated 10.12.2011 for an amount of Rs.5,485/- in favor of M/s Sundaram Finance Limited. Ext.A2 is the original memorandum of cheque returned. In Ext.A2 it is noted that the cheque is returned stating “funds insufficient”. Ext.A3 is the savings bank pass book (photo copy) dealing with opposite party.
5. Opposite party has filed chief affidavit in addition to their version, they are also filed Ext.B1 account statement of the complainant. It is clear from Ext.A1 to A3 that the complainant as given a cheque for Rs.5,485/- dated 10.12.2011 to M/s Sundaram Finance Limited and the same is returned stating that “funds insufficient” even though there is sufficient fund in the account of the complainant to honor the cheque. According to the opposite party this is happened due to inadvertent omission happened at the hands of officials working at Mumbai service Branch of the opposite party. It is happened due to huge transactions per day unlike in rural areas. Any how the cheque returned stating that there is no “insufficient of funds” even though there is sufficient fund to honor the cheque. This is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Even though the complainant has stated many things in the complaint as well as in the affidavit. It is not proved before us to award a huge amount. Hence we award a compensation of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The opposite party has to pay the above amount to the complainant. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed the opposite party is directed to give Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) to the complainant as compensation. There is no Order as to cost. This is to be complied by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 22nd June 2012.
Date of Filing:12.01.2012.
