FA.No.263/2010 against CC.No.381/2008 District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam.

Between:

Sri Madhira Ramakrishna,

S/o.Madhira Subba Rao, Hindu,

Aged 74 years, a Senior Citizen,

R/at D.No.50-25-6, T.P.T.Colony,

Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.The Credit Card Division,

   H.D.F.C. Rep. by its Manager,

   Payment Processing Unit, P.O.Box No.399,

2.HDFC Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager,

   Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant           :  Smt.M.Bhaskara Lakshmi.

Counsel for the Respondents     :  Respondent served. None appeared.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******  

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against inadequacy of the

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that a demand notice was issued by the Bank to pay Rs.2032/- in the month of February 2008.  On that he has issued a cheque for the said amount of Rs.2032/- on 18.02.2008.  The bank by its notice dated 28.02.2008, informed that the said cheque was bounced for insufficient funds.  In fact, on perusal of the statement of the account, Ex.A.2 it is more than clear that the amount was remitted in the account.  The bouncing of cheque was unjust.  He also found in the Credit Card Statement dated 02.03.2008, Ex.A.3 that an amount of Rs.2032/- was debited.  This has caused a lot of mental agony, he being an old man and therefore claimed Rs.50

3.         The HDFC Bank resisted the case.  It alleged that the complaint was filed to make illegal gain and there was no deficiency of service on its part.  The credit card facility was given for his personal use.  During the month of February, 2008 the Bank had sent a demand notice for Rs.2032/- for the expenditure incurred by him by way of his credit card and to clear the same.  On that the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.2083/- dt.18.02.2008.  However, the same could not be honoured.  In fact it would normally present the cheques on the schedule date, and if there is no sufficient balance, the same would be dishonoured.  This fact was informed to the complainant through their agent, but he did not respond.  There was no balance to honour the cheque issued by the complainant.  It therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.9, while the opposite parties’ Bank did not file any document. 

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there was clear negligence on the part of opposite parties’ Bank.  The credit card statement shows that he had sufficient fund to pay the amount of R.2032/- for which he used credit card.  The notice issued by the bank on 28.02.2008 is highly unwarranted.  He suffered mental agony and therefore, directed the opposite parties’ Bank to pay compensation of Rs.5 

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in its correct perspective.  The Bank had unjustly bounced the cheque though sufficient amount was available in his account which would amount to deficiency of service Since he suffered financially as well as mentally, the compensation that was awarded was too low and therefore the claim be allowed.    

7.         The respondents/opposite parties Bank did not choose to contest the matter despite notices being served on it.

8.         The point for consideration is whether the order of the District
Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts?

9.         It is an undisputed fact that when the complainant has presented the cheque for Rs.2032/- on 18.02.2008, for the reasons best known the cheque was bounced.  On that the complainant informed that the amount was very much available and the cheque could not have been dishonoured by the Bank.  When the Bank had demanded an amount of Rs.337.08 ps towards charges for bounce of cheque as fine, he paid the said amount also.  Later on verification of his statement of account, Ex.A.2, he found that the amounts were very much available in the   to release the amount covered by the cheque.  The Bank did not explain as to why the cheque was returned for insufficient funds when sufficient funds are available in the account of the complainant.  The bank cannot return the cheque on the ground that there was no sufficient amount.  The complainant, a retired professor aged about 70 years undoubtedly having credibility in the society.  By conduct and attitude of the Bank, he must have suffered loss of prestige and reputation, besides mental agony.  Since the Bank committed mistake it must be penalized with heavy compensation.  The conduct of the bank cannot be justified on any score.  Considering the nature of transaction, we are of the opinion that a compensation of Rs.10   

10.       In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.5,000/-, besides costs of Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.1,000/-.  Time for payment of these amounts four weeks.     

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

DtVvr