BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 08/2007 Filed on 06.01.2007

Dated : 30.10.2010

Complainant:

U. Mujeeb, S/o Shahul Hameed, Munthaz Manzil, Korickakkom Vilakom, Poonthura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. G.S. Satheesan Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Statue Branch, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. State Bank of India(Statue Branch), represented by its Chief Manager, Statue Branch, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. T.K. Usha Kumari)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 10.08.2010, the Forum on 30.10.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is the holder of SB Account No. 3003822187-6 of the 2^nd opposite party, that he was a very prompt and regular customer with sizable amount of transaction with the bank every month, that complainant was running the business of mobile phone sales and services and accessories at East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram under the name and style Classic Communications, that when the book of cheques issued to him got over the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for issuance of a new cheque book, that 1^st opposite party declined his request stating that he could not issue a new cheque book to him, that when complainant had made the above demand, there was a balance amount of Rs. 21,220/- pending in his S.B Account. When complainant enquired the reason why 1^st opposite party did not issue the cheque book to him, 1^st opposite party informed him that he had no interest to maintain the complainant's account in the bank, that opposite party is morally and legally bound to issue a cheque to the complainant as he was a bonafide customer of the bank. Hence this complaint to direct 1^st opposite party to issue cheque book to the complainant along with payment of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and costs.

Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that S.B A/c is meant for encouraging saving habit among the public, at the same time as a source of deposit for banks, that limited cheque leaves are issued to them for withdrawing money especially for their personal needs. Such debit transactions are also limited to 20 cheques per year. Complainant is said to have been used the above said account against SB Rules, that if complainant had informed the opposite parties regarding the purpose of his account, opposite parties would have advised him to open only current account, that the reason for declining the request of the complainant for cheque book was promptly communicated to him vide letter dated 02.11.2006, that additional cheque book was not issued by the opposite party, the reason for which has already advised to the complainant by letter dated 02.11.2006, that the balance of Rs. 21,220/- on 31.10.2006 was maintained by depositing an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 30.10.2006 to meet a cheque No. 9166470 for Rs. 17,532/- which was already returned twice due to insufficient balance on 23.10.2006 and on 28.10.2006. The aforesaid cheque was again presented for payment on 06.11.2006 to the opposite party and it was duly honoured, that in the month of October 2006 itself many cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds from the account of the complainant which shows the ill health of the account. Till date complainant has not approached the opposite party for opening a current account in his name. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a cheque book?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 & P2. In rebuttal opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D4. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties, while opposite party has not been cross examined by the complainant.

Points (i) to (iii):- There is no point in dispute that complainant is a holder of SB A/c vide No. 3003822187-6 of the opposite party bank. It has been the case of the complainant that when the book of cheques issued to him got over, he approached the opposite party for issuance of a new cheque book, but opposite party declined his request. He could not issue a new cheque book to him. The very case of the complainant is that when he made the above said demand, there was balance amount of Rs. 21,220/- pending in his S.B A/c. Ext. P1 is the copy of the letter addressed to the Chief Manager, Statue regarding the non-issuance of cheque book. Ext. P2 is the copy of cheque book application dated 31.10.2006. Ext. P2 has marked subject to objection. Opposite party resists the complainant by submitting that Saving Bank Account is meant for encouraging saving habit among the public, at the same time as a source of deposit for the banks, that a limited cheque leaves are also issued to saving bank account holders for withdrawing money especially for their personal needs. It has also been contended by opposite parties that debit transactions are limited to 20 cheques per year. It has been the specific stand of the opposite party that the account of the complainant said to have been used by him is against SB Rules. Had complainant revealed the purpose of the account, opposite party would have advised him to open only current account. According to opposite parties, the request of the complainant for cheque book was properly communicated to him vide letter dated 02.11.2006. Ext. D1 is the copy of the said letter. On perusal of Ext. D1, it is seen that on several times opposite party informed the complainant that they could not issue cheque books without maintaining sufficient balance in the account. Inspite of the repeated instructions given by opposite parties, complainant has been issuing cheques without adequate balance in the account. Hence opposite parties were not able to issue further cheque book in his account. In the chief affidavit filed by the opposite party, it is stated that the balance of Rs. 21,220/- on 31.10.2006 was maintained by depositing an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 30.10.2006 to meet a cheque No. 9166470 for Rs. 17,532/- which was already returned twice due to insufficient balance on 23.10.2006 and on 28.10.2006. The above said cheque was again presented for payment on 06.11.2006 to opposite party and it was duly honoured. It is further stated in the affidavit that in the month of October 2006 itself many cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds from the account of the complainant which shows the ill health of the said account. Subsequently complainant had withdrawn certain amount by using withdrawal slips as applicable to SB Account holders and balance in his account was reduced to Rs. 1,622/- as on 12.03.2007. Ext. D2 is the copy of the statement of account showing the transactions in the said account. Ext. D3 is the copy of the cheque book register. Ext. D4 is the Savings Bank Rules Updation and Codification. In this context it is to be stated that issuance of cheque book is purely the right of the opposite party depending upon the operation of the purpose of the account. Undoubtedly Savings Bank Account aims at developing the habit of thrift, thereby frequent withdrawal is impliedly limited by issuing limited number of cheque leaves. It is purely in accordance with the Savings Bank Rules vide Ext. D4. It is further to be pointed out that though complainant has been cross examined by the opposite party, opposite party has not been cross examined by the complainant to disprove the contention in the version. Further complainant has never furnished any other documents to show that he has not utilized the said account for business purpose. Since opposite party has not been cross examined by the complainant, the contention raised by opposite party in their version remains uncontroverted, which has been supported by Exts. D1 to D4. In view of the above discussions, we find that opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service by declining the request of the complainant for cheque book and complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of October 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 08/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Mujeeb

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the letter addressed to the Chief Manager, Statue.

P2 - Copy of cheque book application dated 31.10.2006

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Mohanakumaran Nair

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of the letter dated 02.11.2006 addressed to complainant.

D2 - Copy of statement of account showing the transactions in account No. 30038221876

D3 - Copy of the cheque book register.

D4 - Copy of the savings Bank Rules Updation and Codification.

PRESIDENT

jb