BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

       DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO. 112/2017

Date of filing 10/11/2017

Dated  9^th  day of August, 2018

   P r e  s e n t: 

01) Smt.Sharada.K.                                                    President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl) 

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                         Lady   Member…

                            B.A (Music)

                V/s

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SHARADA.K.PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) seeking direction to OPs to pay Rs.175/- with interest till to the realization and Rs.10,000/- towards damages  to the Complaint, Rs.2,000/- towards cost of proceedings and any other reliefs as the Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

2.    The brief fact of the case are as follows:

The complainant stated that one Smt.Pushpa S. Kulkarni has issued a cheque of Synidacte Bank, Navanagar Branch, Bagalkot bearing S.B. A/c. No.1806-22000034403 and cheque bearing No.821471 dated 29/08/2017 for Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and the said cheque was sent for clearance through O.P.1 on 31/08/2017 to O.P.2 Branch. The said cheque was returned back with endorsement dated 31/08/2017 stating that account is blocked. Though the cheque issuer is having sufficient amount at the O.P.2 branch still the opponent have returned the cheque without any valid reasons. O.P.1 had charged Rs.175/- to the complainant and have deducted the amount from the SB Account of the complainant bearing No.52180290897 maintained at O.P.1 branch without intimating the complainant. This is contrary to O.Ps. banking norms and without intimating the parties the O.P. has deducted the amount and returned the cheque and complainant further stated that O.P.2 that the cheque issuer is having the total amount of Rs.10,705.47 as on 31/03/2017 and Rs.9,565.72 as on 25/10/2017 and it can be noted that an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been withdrawn by the account holder on 25/10/2017. It is clearly shows that, the transaction has taken place after returning the said cheque to the complainant this is an unfair trade practice by the O.P.2 and account is not being blocked by anybody it is crystal clear evidence a statement copy is produced herewith is produced Hon’ble Forum. Hence complainant was constrained to send legal notices to O.Ps. on 05/10/2017. O.Ps. have received the legal notice till today they have not responded, this amounts to deficiency in service as per 2(g) of CP Act 1986, and also unfair trade practice as per 2 (vii) (viii) of CP Act 1986. Hence, the complainant constrained to file this Complaint seeking direction to OPs to pay Rs. 175/- with accrued interest thereup on till realization, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to the Complaint, Rs.2,000/- towards cost of proceedings and any other reliefs as the Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case. 

3.      After receipt of notice, Ops appeared through his counsel and filed objection denied the entire contents of the Complaint are all false and vexatious. OP No.1 further submits that it is true that the complainant has presented cheuqe bearing “821471” of O.P.2 bank dated 29/08/2017 of Rs.5,000/- for clearance of said cheque from O.P.1 bank to the O.P.2 bank. After receipt of the endorsement i.e. the account of complainant is blocked from the O.P.2 bank O.P. has intimated the same to the complainant and issued cheque return memo on 31/08/2017 by charging the account of complainant of Rs.175/- as per the RBI guidelines as service charges. After that the complainant has not approached the present O.P.1 bank for any clarification or issued any notice through his advocate to O.P. branch as stated in the complaint. O.P.1 has not violated any guidelines issued by the RBI and there is no deficiency of service on the part of us. Hence complainant complaint against O.P.1 is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

4. O.P.2 counsel filed objection and denied all the averments in the complainant to the extend that, those are expressly admitted by O.P.2.  O.P.2 further contended that complaint filed by the complainant against O.P.2 is false and frivolous and as such it is deserved to be dismissed. It is true that one Smt.Pushpa S. Kulkarni is holding S.B. Account No. 1806-22000034403 with the O.P.2 bank. O.P.2 say that Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni had issued a cheque bearing No.821471 dated 29/08/2017 for Rs.5,000/- in the name of present complainant. Further O.P.2 had returned the cheque of Smt Pushpa Kulkarni who had issued to this complainant and who is having an S B Account with O.P.2 Bank. The complainant cannot question about this return of the said cheque and Account holder Smt. Pushpa Kulkarnin can question about this return of her said cheque. Further O.P.2 has contended that there is no any cause of action to file this complaint Hon’ble Forum by the complainant against O.P.2 Bank. O.P.2 contended that O.P.1’s Bank sent this cheque for clearing to this O.P.2’s Bank and the O.P. 2 had received said cheque on 31/08/2017 from O.P.1 and same day the said cheque was presented to her account. O.P.2 has returned this cheque on 31/08/2017 with an endorsement that, the account of the cheque issue Smt. Pushpa account is blocked and contentions of the complainant it is true that Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni is having a sufficient amount in her account at O.P.2 but it is to submits that Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni had not operated this account for long time and account was under non operating condition as on 31/08/2017 and in the computer system it is also displayed that the account is dormant account etc., Para No.2 of the complaint the complainant has contended that, the cheque issue is having the total amount of Rs.10,705.47 as on 31/03/2017 and Rs.9565.72 as on 25/10/2017 and it can be noted that an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been drawn by the Account Holder on 25/10/2017. O.P.1 Bank had deducted Rs.175/- as service charge. The deduction of the service charge by the O.P.1 is not at all concerned to  O.P.2. Hence, Ops prays that this Complaint has to be dismissed with costs.    

5.      To prove the case of the complainant, tendered affidavit evidence and placed following documents: 

1. Syndicate Bank Cheque No.821471 dt: 29.8.2017.

2. SBI pay in Slip dated 29.08.2017.

3. Return memo dated 31.08.2017

4. Debit Slip of O.P.1 dated: 31.08.2017

5. Legal Notice dated 09.10.2017

6. Postal Acknowledgements.

7. Statement of Accounts.

6. Ops 1 & 2 tendered affidavit evidence and placed following documents:

1. True copy of service charges register.

7.      After considering the material placed on record, heard the argument of both parties and perused the pleadings of the parties, our answer to the above points are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act 1986 ?

2. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. as alleged by the complainant?

3. What order?

8.    Our findings on the above points are as under:

          Point No.1:-         In the negative,

          Point No.2:-         Negative,

          Point No.3:-       As per final order.

-: R E A S O N S :-

          9.      POINT NO.1 and 2 :-  The O.Ps. have raised in arguments that the O.P.2 had returned the said cheque of Smt.Pushpa Kulkarni. Hence the complainant cannot question about this return of the said cheque, but the account holder Smt.Pushpa Kulkarni can question about this return of her said cheque. Therefore there is no any cause of action to file this complaint by the complainant against O.Ps.2’ Bank.

          On perusal of pleadings and evidence we come to the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer U/s. 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act 1986 because that One Smt. Pushpa S. Kulkarni has issued a cheque of Syndicate Bank, Navanagar Branch, Bagalkot bearing S.B. A/c. No.180622000034403 and cheque bearing No.821471 dated 29/08/2017 for Rs.5,000/- to complainant, cheque was sent for clearance through the O.P.1 on 31/08/2017 to O.P.2 branch that said cheque was returned back with endorsement dated 31/08/2017 stating that account is blocked. Hence account holder Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni on 25/10/2017 submitted her application to O.P.2 bank and re-activated her account and O.P.1 bank had deducted the Rs.175/- as a service charges.

          10.   Smt.Pushpa Kulkarni has not questioned the about return of her said cheque or deducted the Rs.175/- for service charges by the O.P.No.1. Hence the complainant has no locus-standi to approach this forum without any authorization from Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni.

          Further, the issue is with regard to Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni was not operated said account for long time her account was DORNMENT account in the computer system on 31/08/2017.  The Complainant cannot have any grievance as one Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni has not approached this Forum. Hence on above discussion looking from any angle, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. as well as maintainability of the complaint before this forum. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.

The complainant has produced the citations which are:-

Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

(2017) CJ 622 (N.C.)

Neelam Pansari and Another Vs. C.G.M. State Bank of India and Another.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 17,19 and 21-Banking and financial services-Deficiency in service-Charging of interest-State Commission dismissed complaint on ground that there was no deficiency on behalf of Ops in charging interest at quarterly rest as per terms of Agreement-There are no specific guidelines issued by RBI which prevail upon Bank to charge interest at quarterly rests in case of premises loans-In absence of any specific directions given by RBI, to charge interest at quarterly rests on premises loans, there was deficiency of service on part of SBI in charging interest at quarterly rests-Order passed by State Commission set aside and SBI directed to refund to complainant excess amount.

The said citation is not applicable to this present Complaint.

          11.  Point No.3 : In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

:: ORDER ::

        The complaint filed by the complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to cost.

Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 9^th day of August, 2018)