Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/59/2017

Arunakumari.G.S w/o Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager,SBM - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.Sreepathi

28 Dec 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:14.06.2017

DISPOSED      ON:28.12.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 59/2017

 

DATED:  28^th DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Arunakumari G.S, W/o Srinivasan, Age: 60 Years, Agriculturist, R/o Guleharive, Settihally Post, Tumkur-572102.     (Rep by Sri.G. Sripathi, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Kempegowda Road, Bangalore.   2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore (Now State Bank of India), JCR Extension Branch, Branch Code No.406635, No.120, I Floor, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.51,500/- towards damages, mental agony and financial loss  and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainants are that, she is having ATM card and OP Band is having core banking system and with this complainant is availing service of ATM in case of necessary for withdrawing the money for her need.  It is further submitted that, on 12.01.2017, complainant deposited one cheque to her A/c No.54034781925 which was issued by one Sri. G.L. Rangaraju for Rs.20,000/- through State Bank of Mysore, Guluru Branch, Tumkur dated 22.12.2016.  The complainant is having counter foil of challan for having deposited the cheque to her SB A/c to OP No.2 Bank.  OP No.1 is the Head Office, OP No.2 is the Branch Office.  It is further submitted that, after presentation of the cheque to OP No.2 Bank, the above said cheque was returned with an endorsement as insufficient funds.  But, the OP No.2 has not intimated the same to complainant by RPAD or through telephone, it is the negligent act of the OP No.2.  The validity of the cheque presented by the complainant is for 3 months, the same was completed on 21.03.2017.  Now the complainant is unable to do anything from the said cheque, for the same complainant has lost Rs.20,000/- due to mutilated cheque, even today they have failed to trace the same and handed over to the complainant after receipt of legal notice by them.  It is further submitted that, due to negligent act of the OP No.2, the complainant has put to great loss, mental agony and financial loss.  Hence, prayed for allow this complaint.

3.      After service of notice to the OPs, OP No.2 appeared through Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasima, Advocate and filed version. Notice sent to the OP No.1 served but, failed to appear before this Forum.  Hence, placed ex-parte.  According to the OP No.2, the averments stated in the complaint are false and complainant has put to strict proof of the same.  The OP No.2 has denied every contents of the complaint but, OP No.2 accepted that the complainant is having SB A/c in their Bank.  After presentation of the cheque through SBM, Guluru Branch, Tumkuru, the OP has intimated the same to the complainant stating that, the cheque presented by you is returned with an endorsement insufficient funds in the account of the person who has given cheque.  According to the OPs, the complainant is working as SDA at District Consumer Forum, Tumkur.  The OP No.2 has visited the District Consumer Forum, Chitradurga, by that time, the complainant was transferred to some other place.  OP No.2 says that, the same has been intimated to the complainant through telephone.  OP No.2 has not committed any deficiency of service in informing the complainant about the cheque returned with a shara insufficient funds.  The complainant has filed this complaint only to grab the money from the OP No.2.  It is true that legal notice has been issued by the complainant non-issuing of the reply to the complainant is not a deficiency or defective or negligent in service.  The reason for non-replying to the said legal notice may be rush of work or merger process of the SBM with SBI and also other bonafide reasons.  The major reason for non-replying to the said legal notice is within time is that, the OP No.2 has already informed the status of the cheque over phone several times.  Non-replying to the legal notice is deeply regretted.  The allegations made in para 2 to 5 are completely false.  The OP No.2 has faced mental agony, inconvenience and also mental sufferings due to the act of the complainant for which the complainant has to pay the damages and cost of the litigation.  The complainant is still having right to file Civil Suit against the drawer of the cheque if she feels so.  Any how the complainant played a drama in this regard to get wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the OP No.2.  The complainant has not approach the Forum with clean hands.  There is no cause of action for the complainant, the alleged cause of action is created, concocted and imaginary, only to file this complaint against the OP No.2 with an intention to get unlawful gain.  There is a lack of bonafide mistake with the complainant and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.              

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked and closed her side.  OP has examined one S.H. Rajanna, Manager of OP No.2 and relied on documents Ex.B-1 to B-3 and closed their side.

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OP No.2 has committed deficiency of service in non-intimating the complainant regarding dishonor of cheque?

 

2. What order?

 

 

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, the complainant is having SB A/c bearing No.54034781925 with OP No.2.  She deposited a cheque issued by one G.L. Rangaraju drawn on State Bank of Mysore on 22.12.2016 for Rs.20,000/-.  The same has been returned for insufficient funds.  According to the complainant, the same is not intimated by the OP No.2 to her.  The complainant has lost the amount of Rs.20,000/- due to non-intimating about dishonor of the cheque.  The complainant has issued the legal notice to the OP No.2 for no giving the information about the dishonor of cheque to her.  The OP No.2 has stated in its version that, it has send his attender to the District Consumer Forum, Chitradurga where the complainant was working and heard that the complainant has been transferred to Tumkur District Forum.  Then the OP No.2 has intimated the same to the complainant through telephone.  But the complainant has denied and stated that, the OP No.2 has not intimated the same to her through telephone or through RPAD.  The documents produced by the complainant clearly shows that the OP No.2 never intimated the OP No.2 with regard to the dishonor of cheque.  The complainant has approached the OP No.2 Branch asking for return of the dishonored cheque.  But the OP No.2 has not returned the cheque well in time to the complainant.  The exhibits produced by the OP No.2 i.e., the statement of accounts and original dishonor of cheque and reasons for return of the cheque. 

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OP No.2.  According to the complainant, she is having SB A/c with the OP No.2.  The complainant has received one cheque from his friend Sri. G.L. Rangaraju drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Gurulu Branch for Rs.20,000/-.  The same has been presented by the complainant through her account having SBM, JCR Branch, Chitradurga.  The same was returned due with an endorsement insufficient funds in the account of said G.L. Rangaraju.  According to the complainant, the same is not intimated to the complainant through RPAD but the OP No.2 has stated that, the attender of OP No.2 has visited the office of District Consumer Forum, Chitradurga and heard that, the complainant has transferred to Tumkur.  But, OP No.2 says that, the same has been intimated to the complainant through telephone but, OP No.2 never produced any documents to show that, the message was intimated to the complainant.  The complainant has relied upon decisions reported in 2013 (3) CPR 240 (NC) wherein it has been held as under:

2013(3) CPR 240 (NC)

Oriental Bank of Commerce

Vs.

The Professional Couriers

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 17, 19 and 21 – Banking – Non-return of dishonored cheque – District Forum directed petitioner to pay sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to complainant as compensation for loss of cheque and mental agony caused besides cost of Rs.3,000/- petitioner bank has failed to credit amount of cheque deposited by complainant nor it returned cheque to complainant – petitioner has not produced cogent evidence from its local branch to establish that consignment containing cheque was not received by that branch – Petitioner Bank was guilty of deficiency in service and there was no deficiency of service on part of Courier – No reason to interfere with impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction – Revision Petition dismissed.

 

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.      

 

 

          Another decision reported in 2014(3) CPR 738 (NC) wherein it has been held that:

 

2014(3) CPR 738 (NC)

Rajasthan State Co-op. Bank Ltd., through Manager and another

Vs.

Kanhaiyalal Sharma

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21 – Banking – Deficiency in service – Demand Drafts not credited in account of complainant – District Forum allowed complaint and directed Opposite Party to pay Rs.10 lakhs with 12 % p.a interest and further ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as cost – It cannot be inferred that Demand Drafts were not deposited by Complainant with Opposite Party for collection – Impugned order is a speaking order in which all contentions have been dealt with by State Commission and it cannot be said to be a non-speaking order – Revision Petition dismissed.

 

 

Another decision reported in 2016(2) CPR 871 (NC) wherein it has been held that:

2016(2) CPR 871 (NC)

Canara Bank and Others

Vs.

Sanjay Mitra

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21 – Banking – Deficiency in service – Dishonour of cheque issued from Savings Account – District Forum directing Bank to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for dishonor of cheque, Rs. One lakh towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, also directed to pay punitive damages of Rs.one lakh to Consumer Welfare Fund – There was sufficient cash balance in account and it was admittedly a bonafide mistake by Petitioner Bank in dishonouring cheque on ground that account was inoperative – Material on record evidences that Complainant had suffered monetary loss on account of dishonouring of the cheque – Complainant deserves to be compensated – Lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is just and reasonable to meet ends of justice – Costs of Rs.10,000/- and default interest at 10% awarded by Fora below confirmed – Rest of awarded amounts set aside.

 

Result: Revision Petition Partly allowed.

 

    

 

 10.   As per the above decisions, the OP No.2 has committed deficiency of service for non-intimating the message to the complainant about the dishonor of cheque.  Hence, the OP No.2 has committed deficiency of service.   Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.           

            11.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

            The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

            It is ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to return the dishonored cheque along with fresh endorsement to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order to the address given in the cause title through RPAD.  If fails to do so, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-, the cheque amount to the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to file recovery proceedings before the jurisdictional Court under Section 138 of N.I Act against G.L. Rangaraju. 

            The office is hereby directed to return the original cheque to OP No.2 after the completion of appeal period.

            Complaint filed as against OP No.1 is hereby dismissed.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 28/12/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

DW-1: Sri. S.H. Rajanna, the Branch Manager of OP No.2 by way of evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Counter foil
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 17.05.2017
03	Ex-A-3:-	Postal Receipt
04	Ex.A-4:-	Postal acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Certified copy of Local Delivery Book
02	Ex-B-2:-	Original Cheque
03	Ex-B-3:-	Original endorsement

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**