Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/88/2017

R.Sarojini - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Indian Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.K.Govindan ,H.Krishnaraj

09 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  06.07.2017

                                                               Order pronounced on: 24.01.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 24^th  DAY OF JANUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.88/2017

 

 

R.Sarojini,

W/o.K.Govindan,

No.4/39, Perumal First Street,

Purasawalkam, Chennai – 600 007.

 

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.The Chairman,

Indian Overseas Bank,

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

Purasawalkam Branch,

No.15, Hunters Road, Dovton,

Chennai  600 007.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s.K.Govindan, H.Krishnaraj,    

                                                                      K.Rathinavel

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                      : M/s.M.Karthikeyan, K.Kumaran &

                                                                      R.Vigneswaran

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant  is an account holder and holding account in S/B Account bearing No.48896. She had a Fixed Deposit of  Rs.1,00,000/- with the 2^nd opposite party.  On 25.10.2016 as the deposit got expired she requested the bank to credit the said amount in her S/B Account and it was also credited on the same day by the bank. On 26.10.16 the complainant issued an IOB Cheque bearing No.53885 for Rs.1,00,000/- to Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and the said cheque was sent to 2^nd opposite party  for clearance and on 27.10.2016  it was returned and dishonoured though there was sufficient funds in her account. Rs.171.50 was charged for the return and return memo dated 28.10.2016 was issued to the complainant . When the complainant  enquired for the reason the 2^nd opposite party  wantonly failed to disclose the reasons for the return of cheque and then the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties.  The complainant  was put to loss, damages and mental agony.  It  is an harassment and hardship  caused to the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party namely Axis Bank which has actually presented the cheque of  the complainant  for collection to the opposite parties.  The Cheque bearing No.538853 issued  by the complainant  was presented in CTS Clearing on 27/28.10.16 (Friday and Saturday). It is an old cheque and Non CTS Cheque  but wrongly presented in CTS clearing by Axis BNK Ltd., In a CTS cheque  the branch address and IFSC code should be on the top left side of the Cheque  and the word CTS-2010 must be printed on the left hand side of the cheque near perforation. As per clearing House operations the Non-CTS cheque has to be presented on Non-CTS days i.e. on Mondays. Since the cheque was presented by M/S Axis Bank on some other day the cheque could not be honoured and it was returned dishonoured for the said reasons and it ought to have been re-presented on  non  CTS cheque clearing day instead of returning the cheque to the Complainant.  But M/s. Axis bank has wrongly returned the cheque as dishonoured which resulted in presenting the complaint by the complainant before this forum. It is a misconception of fact and there is no deficiency in service by the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

4. POINT NO :1 

           The pass book entry, returned cheque, return Memo, Legal notices, acknowledgement and Cash receipt are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 by the complainant .  All references with  these documents are not denied. Ex.A3 is the return advice by Axis bank Ltd., to Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative  society.  No reason is stated in the return memo and was advised to contact the drawer and to present the cheque again by IOB. Ex.A7 is the proof for general suspense advance payment for Rs.171.50  paid by the complainant  to Chennai-Metropolitan Co-operative society . The complaint  discloses that the complainant  is an account holder with the 2^nd opposite party  branch  though there was sufficient fund in her account,  the cheque presented before Axis bank was dishonoured and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

           05. The opposite parties  would contend that  the alleged cheque was supposed to be  presented by the Axis-bank on Non- CTS days.  Since it was an old Non-CTS cheque, but wrongly presented by Axis bank  for which opposite parties  are not responsible  and  the Axis-bank is a  necessary party to the complainant.   There is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

            06.  On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant,  Ex.A3 return advice was given by Axis-bank to Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative  society.  No specific reason is assigned in the return memo except the reason to contact the drawer and to present the cheque again  by IOB and it is addressed to Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative Society and the amount of Rs.171.50 was paid to Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative Society by the complainant. It was also inferred from Ex.A2 that IOB  cheque of the complainant  was given to Chennai metropolitan Co-operative  Housing Society Ltd., and presented through Axis Bank Ltd., Return memo in Ex.A3  was also issued by Axis Bank and the cheque return amount of  Rs.171.50 was paid to the Chennai-Metropolitan Co-operative society Ltd., The burden is on the Axis bank to present the cheque on Non-CTS clearing days  since  it was an old cheque where  the branch address with IFSC Code could not be seen on the left hand side near perforation.

  07. The said branch address and IFSC code is not seen  in Ex.A2 Cheque  and hence the points put forth by the opposite parties  have to be taken into account as true and considered as Non CTS Cheque.   There is no specific indication as “CTS-2010” also.  Therefore in such a condition  the cheque being presented by Axis bank  on CTS clearing days   ended in return of   the cheque.  27/28/10/2016 happened to be on Friday/Saturday as put forth by the opposite parties  and it is to be considered as correct  when it is not denied by  way of filing additional proof-affidavit by complainant.  Return memo by the Axis Bank  has failed to state the reasons and advised to contact the drawer Drawee bank and present again by IOB. Neither of it was followed and there is no proof filed by the complainant  for the said approach even after the receipt of  Ex.A3 Axis bank ought to have represented the cheque on the day specified for clearing Non-CTS days instead the cheque was returned by Axis-bank . Therefore there is no fault lies on the part of opposite parties.

           08. The opposite parties  have not returned the cheque to the complainant for insufficient funds and the complainant has not come forward to implead Axis bank as a party inspite  of opposite parties  pointing out in their written version. The complainant failed to add  the necessary party i.e. Axis Bank which actually presented the cheque issued by the complainant  to the Co-operative  Society Ltd for collection  and returned the cheque  to the complainant  instead of re presenting the said cheque on Non CTS days i.e on specified clearance days. Hence we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties  and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

09. POINT NO.2:

                In view of the discussion held in point No.1,the complainant  is not entitled to any relief against opposite parties  and the complaint  is dismissed.

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 24^th  day of January 2020.

MEMBER  I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 16.09.2016          Passbook entry of SB.Ac.48896

 

Ex.A2 dated 26.10.2016          Returned IOB Cheque No.538853

 

Ex.A3 dated 28.10.2016          Return memo

 

Ex.A4 dated 25.11.2016          Legal Notice to opposite parties

 

Ex.A5 dated 03.12.2016          Acknowledgement from first party

 

Ex.A6 dated 03.12.2016          Acknowledgement from second party

 

Ex.A7 dated 21.11.2016          Cash receipt from Chennai Metropolitan co-      operative Housing Facility

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

                                     NIL 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT