Complaint filed on: 02-07-2016                                                      Disposed on: 07-01-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.100/2016

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF JANUARY 2017

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

                                            Swathi.S,              

D/o. G.Sreepathi,

Aged about 24 years,

R/o. Sri Ramashraya,

4^th Main Road,

Shivamookambika Nagara,

S.S.Puram Post,

Tumakuru-572 102

(By advocate Sri.G.Sreepathi)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The General Manager/CEO, Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd, Main office B.H.Road, Tumkur.
2. The Branch Manager, Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd, Raghavendra Nagar branch, SIT Main Road, Tumkur

(OP No.1 and 2 by advocate Sri.H.S.Bhasmangi Rudraiah)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 and 2, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.25,000=00 towards mental agony and to pay expense of Rs.15,000=00 and Rs.1,000=00 towards legal notice.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant is having SB Account in the 2^nd OP bank branch bearing SB account No.30302251824. On behalf of the complainant, her father Sri.G.Sreepathi had presented the post office cheque of Rs.51,975=00  to the 1^st OP bank on 6-6-2016 at 1.50 p.m. The 1^st OP bank official had assured the complainant’s father that, they will credit the cheque amount to the complainant’s account on 7-6-2016, but the same was not done by the 1^st OP bank officials. In this regard, the complainant’s father enquired about the cheque clearance, but the 1^st OP bank officials gave vague answer to the complainant’s father.

          The complainant further submitted that, on behalf of her, the complainant’s father had visited the OP bank to get the cheque amount on 8-6-2016 and 9-6-2016. The OP bank rejected the cheque due to insufficient fund in the account, even after 3 days. The OP bank had failed to credit the cheque amount to the complainant’s account.

          The complainant further submitted that, the complainant’s father needs urgent money to set-right the financial problem.  The complainant’s father had borrowed hand loan from his friends. Due to negligent act of the OPs, the complainant had suffered mental agony and financial problems.

          The complainant further submitted that, the above said cheque amount has received on 10-6-2016 with protest and thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP No.1 and 2 and the same was served on the OPs and replied the same. Hence the complainant has come up with the present complaint.      

3. After service of notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed common objections.

4. In the objection, the OPs submitted that, the allegations made in the complaint all are false and incorrect. The complainant has suppressed true facts before the forum.

The OPs further submitted that, the bank which received the cheque is not a party before this forum to answer properly what was real problem and the OPs is only the collecting bank from where the amount available and the OP bank done its duty effectively prudently without committing negligence.

The OPs further submitted that, the OPs have processed the cheque for clearance without any delay or negligence and there was no fault on the side of OP at any stage till clearance and there is no materials placed before this forum. Except her interested oral version, the forum cannot believe the complainant without supporting evidence, therefore the bank has discharged their duties at most care and diligently. The OP has not acted irresponsibly and irresponsible approach made by the complainant through her father tantamounts to misguiding this forum. There is no deficiency of service at the hands of these OPs. The complainant without impleading other party who are the real OP, the complaint is not maintainable in law.

The OPs further submitted that, the system of CTS was newly introduced in Tumkur and especially the system of P2F was introduced on 6-6-2016. The cheque was sent in CTS clearing on 7-6-2016 as the instrument was received belatedly on 6-6-2016. The payment message and P2F message was not received on 7-6-2017 from the SBM clearing house, hence credit could not be afforded on 7-6-2016. The clearing house has informed that as the P2F system was new and had some teething technical problems the message could not be generated and sent on 7-6-2016. The P2F message received on 8-6-2016 and the instrument was again scanned and the physical instrument was represented on 9-6-2016 and on the same day the amount was credited to payees account. There is no delay on the part of the OPs at any stage. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

6.  In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version.   The complainant has produced documents, which were marked as Ex-C1 to C6. The OPs have produced the documents, which were marked as Ex-R1 to R4. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents of both parties and posted the case for order.

9. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 and 2 as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?  

10. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: Partly affirmative

          Point no.2: As per the final order below.

REASONS

          11. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence, objections of the OPs and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant’s father had presented the cheque amount of Rs.51,875=00 on 6-6-2016 for clearance in the 1^st OP bank and the same was not credited to the complainant’s account, but credited the cheque amount to the complainant’s account on 9-6-2016.

12. The contention of the complainant is that, though complainant’s father presented the cheque on 6-6-2016, the OPs have not credited the cheque amount to the complainant account on 7-6-2016, 8-6-2016 and 9-6-2016. The OPs bank had credited the cheque amount to the complainant’s account on 10-6-2016. Due to negligent act of the OPs, the complainant had suffered mental agony and financial problem. Hence the complaint is filed.

13. Per-contra, the OPs submitted that, the system of CTS was newly introduced in Tumkur and especially the system of P2F was introduced on 6-6-2016. The cheque was sent in CTS clearing on 7-6-2016.  The payment message and P2F message was not received on 7-6-2017 from the SBM clearing house, hence credit could not be afforded on 7-6-2016. The clearing house has informed that as the P2F system was new and had some teething technical problems the message could not be generated and sent on 7-6-2016. The P2F message received on 8-6-2016 and the instrument was again scanned and the physical instrument was represented on 9-6-2016 and on the same day the amount was credited to the payees account.  

          14. On perusal of the complaint and documents produced by both parties that, it is crystal clear that, the complainant has presented the cheque on 6-6-2016 to the 1^st OP bank branch for clearance at 1.50 p.m. The cheque was credited to complainant’s account on 9-6-2015 as per Ex-R3, i.e. after three days credited the money to the complainant’s account. The OP’s cannot escape from his liability stating that, the CTS system newly generated and P2F massage was not received on 7-6-2015 and 8-6-2016 the instrument was again scanned and physical instrument was re-presented on 9-6-2016 and on the same day the amount was credited. The complainant has been made to bear the burden and the same has caused loss and injury to her as the cheque which ought to have been cleared on 7-6-2016 was only cleared on 9-6-2016. The OPs have a statutory obligation coupled with a duty to clear the cheques within one day. By not having done so, the complainant’s cheque was dishonored for the reason stating “wrongly delivered not drawn on us”. The OPs have committed deficiency by not honouring the cheque and they are solely responsible for the delay. Hence the complaint is allowed. Therefore, we come to conclusion that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has claimed Rs.25,000=00 towards mental agony and Rs.15,000=00 towards cost/damages. The complainant has not produced any supporting documents to show that, she is entitled for the above relief claimed. Hence, we declaim to award such reliefs. Ofcourse, the complainant must have suffered mental agony for the delay in crediting the money to the complainant’s account. Hence, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.2,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs.1,000=00 to the complainant. Accordingly we answer this point. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed.   

The OP No.1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant, failing which, the OP No.1 and 2 shall pay the above said amount along with 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint to till the date of realization.

The OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.1,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation.

This order is to be complied by the OP No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of this order.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 7^th day of January 2017).

LADY MEMBER                      MEMBER                       PRESIDENT