Date of Complaint : 16.104.2015
Date of Order :18.03.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 446/ 2015
THIS FRIDAY 18th DAY OF MARCH 2016
P.G. Rajendran,
G-2, Plot 30, Mahalakshmi Nagar,
4th Main Road,
Adambakkam,
Chennai – 600 088. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
The Chief Manager, Bank of India, Guindy Branch, Mount View, No.111, Annasalai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. .. Opposite party. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : Party in person
For the opposite party : Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- being the sum of all three cheques with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with cost of the complaint.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the opposite party was set exparte on 29.12.2015.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant in person.
4. The complainant contended that he is an ex-staff of the opposite party bank and he was persuaded to take VRS on 15.12.2000. Some staff members had borrowed money from the complainant and they issued four cheques for Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as repayment for the borrowed amount. When he presented the cheques it was returned as “insufficient funds” and the Bank of India, Mount Road Branch sent the returned cheques along with written memo dated 8.8.2013 and he sent notice to one of the drawer namely Vincent Paul under sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on 31.8.2013 which was refused by him on 2.9.2013. The drawer of one of the cheque for Rs.25,000/- namely Mr.Kalamegam was died and hence the complainant decided not to transact his cheque No.589064. But on 25.10.2013 he decided to deposit the other three cheques bearing No.455738 for Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing No.502517 for Rs.20,000/- and another cheque bearing No.502518 for Rs.20,000/-. When he went to the Bank of India Cathedral Road Branch they directed him into approach Madipakkam branch. Since he did not know Madipakkam Branch he approached the opposite party bank to deposit the three cheques. But the counter staff after scanning the system informed that there are insufficient funds in the drawyers account in both the dormant accounts No.25710 (Cheque no.455738) dormant since 19.7.2000 with Rs.4/- and account No.16772 also dormant (Cheque Nos.502517, 502518) with Rs.88.35 to their credit and directed him to meet the Manager the next day. But the complainant dropped the three cheques in the cheque drop box since it is the last date of validity of the cheques. On 30.10.2013 the opposite party sent the cheques through RPAD stating that all the cheques were stale instruments. Since the opposite party affixed seal only on 26.10.2013 in the challan they wantonly returned the cheques depriving his right to take steps u/s 138 of the N.I Act or file any Civil Suit for recovery of the money against drawers and committed deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- being the sum of all three cheques with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with cost of the complaint.
5. Though the complainant averred in the complaint that he had deposited four cheques on 26.7.2013 and they were returned as insufficient funds, Ex.A3 reveals that only two cheques bearing No.502517 for Rs.20,000/- and cheque bearing No.502518 for Rs.20,000/- were returned as insufficient funds. The other cheque bearing No.589064 for Rs.25,000/- issued by one Kalamegam was not deposited by him due to the death of the drawer of the cheque as contended by him. But the grievance of the complainant is not in regard with this issue. The main grievance of the complainant is that he was dragged on from one branch to another and atleast when the complainant approached the opposite party bank to deposit three cheques i.e. No.455738 for Rs.50,000/- and cheque No.502517 for Rs.20,000/- and Cheque No.502518 for Rs.20,000/- on 25.10.2013 on the last date of validity of the cheque, the counter staff of the bank after scanning the system informed that there are no sufficient funds in both the accounts but wantonly failed to issue return memos as in sufficient funds and directed him to meet the Manager on next day. But he dropped in the cheque drop box on the same day i.e. on 25.10.2013. But on 30.10.2013 the opposite party returned the cheques by RPAD with remarks “all the cheques are stale instruments. Hence returned.” i.e. Ex.A7. Hence the complainant is attributing allegations against the opposite party that they had wantonly affixed the seal on 26.10.2013 in order to invalidate the cheques since the drawer of the cheques were staff of the opposite party bank and committed deficiency in service. Due to the willful act of the opposite party he could not initiate action against the drawers of the cheques u/s 138 of N.I. Act or Civil Suit and incurred loss to the extent of the amount of the three cheques totaling of Rs.90,000/-.
6. It is pertinent to note that the Ex.A3 reveals that already the two cheques issued by one of the staff namely Vincent Paul had been returned as insufficient funds. The complainant also sent legal notice to him i.e. Ex.A4 u/s 138 of N.I. Act which was refused by him. Ex.A8 i.e. the challan for the deposit of the complaint mentioned three cheques reveals that the complainant had deposited the said cheques on 25.10.2013 in the opposite party bank whereas the seal affixed on the said cheques is found to be 26.10.2013. Ex.A7 reveals that the cheques were returned as stale cheques. Hence the allegations of the complainant is that only in order to safeguard the drawer of the cheques who are co staff of their bank the opposite party had wantonly refused to entertain the said cheques and failed to issue return memos and affixed the seal only on 26.10.2013.
7. With regard to the above said allegation the complainant also submitted in person that he contacted the opposite party on 25.10.2013 for which he also relied Ex.A6 i.e. the local calls print out. He also further submitted that he took effort to take the CC TV footage to prove that he deposited the complaint mentioned cheques on 25.10.2013 but he could not succeed in his attempt.
8. Hence we come to the conclusion that already two cheques No.502517 for Rs.20,000/- and cheque No.502518 for Rs.20,000/- were returned by the bank on 8.8.2013 for insufficient funds. Further on 25.10.2013 the counter staff of the opposite party informed that there are no sufficient funds in the account of the drawers and refused to issue return memos preventing him from taking action against them u/s 138 N I Act and thereby committed deficiency of service. As such it proves that the drawers did not have sufficient funds in their account and only to safeguard them the opposite party had wantonly affixed the seal as 26.10.2013 as contended by the complainant. Moreover the complainant also sent notice to the opposite party stating his grievance and willful act of the opposite party i.e. Ex.A11 which was received by the opposite party but failed to send any reply which also shows the deficiency in service of the opposite party. Hence the contention and allegations made in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit is admitted as proved since the opposite party had not appeared to give any contra evidence in order to defend their case. As such the opposite party had committed deficiency of service as stated above is not entertaining the cheques.
9. Whereas the contention of the complainant that he incurred loss to the extent of total amount of all the three cheques to a sum of Rs.90,000/- is not acceptable, since he had opportunity very well to approach the Civil court to seek remedy against the drawer of the cheques. Moreover he has not averred in the complaint that whether he received any amount from the drawers and also he has not impleaded the drawers of the cheques as necessary parties to come to a conclusion. Hence seeking relief against the opposite party as sought for in relief-(i) of the complaint to direct them to pay the total amount of Rs.90,000/- being the value of the three cheques is not sustainable.
10. As discussed above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that as far as relief (ii) sought for in the complaint the opposite party had committed deficiency of service and as such they are liable to compensate the complainant by way of paying Rs.10,000/- to each cheques bearing No.455758, cheque bearing No.502517 and cheque No.502518 as totaling of Rs.30,000/- as compensation only to the extent of deficiency in service in not entertaining the complaint mentioned cheques. The complainant may take Civil action against the parties who issued the cheques for recovery of the amount if not paid.
11. Whereas the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant as sought for in the relief-(ii) of the complaint. Since he had opportunity to redress his grievance in Civil Court.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards cost of litigation to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above compensation amount (Rs.30,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 9th day of March 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 26.7.2013 - Cheques Nos.455738, 589064, 502517, 502518
Ex.A2- 26.7.2013 - Cheques Nos.455738, 589064 Returned by Chennai Main Branch.
Ex.A3- 26.7.2013 - Cheques Nos.502517,502518 promptly transacted my Mouth Road
Branch with cheque return Memorandum.
Ex.A4- 31.8.2013 - RPAD Notice sent to Mr.R.Vincent Paul.
Ex.A5- 2.9.2013 - RPAD Notice refused by Mr.Vincent Paul.
Ex.A6- 25.10.2013 - Statement of idea bill.
Ex.A7- 30.10.2013 - Cheques NOs.455738, 502517, 502518 returned by RPAD by
Guindy Branch.
Ex.A8- - - Paying-in-slips staqmped “Received 26th Oct 2013 by Guindy
branch.
Ex.A9- - - Acknowledgment portion of paying in-slip
Ex.A10- - - Newspaper clipping captioned “Banks non-home branch fees”
Ex.A11- 17.9.2015 - Notice sent to IST opposite party
Ex.A12- - - RPAD No.B RT 126277862IN dated 18.9.2015 duly acknowledged
on 21.9.2015.
Ex.A13- 14.11.202 - Cash receipt for Rs.300/-
Opposite party’s side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
