1. The Complainant has come up with this Complaint against the Opposite party with his grievance that he is having an S.B. Account in the Opposite party Bank, deposited a cheque on 13.09.2007 for Rs.7,100/- for collection, it was collected by the Opposite party and credited the proceeds to his account on 14.09.2007, but to his shock, the bank debited that amount stating as “CC Rtd”. That he is suffering from great anxiety and agony as he had issued cheques to LIC and to another person taking into consideration that Rs.7,100/- would be at his credit. That a cheque issued in favour of M/s Sherekhan would be bounced causing great damage to his credit he ran around by rushing to Bangalore arranged a sum of Rs.10,000/- and was credited to his account. He sent a notice to the Opposite party on 09.10.2007 to correct the mistake done. That on 06.10.2007, the Opposite party has credited Rs.7,100/- against OSC 008924302 indicating that this cheque is encashed into his account. He had at no time deposited that cheque for collection. As that cheque does not belongs to him and the Opposite party has wrongly credited Rs.7,100/- to his account and debited a sum of Rs.81/- as collection charges and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to return the cheque no.30208 and to clarify crediting of Rs.7,100/- being the proceeds of cheque no.8924302 and to award compensation of Rs.10,000/-.<br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed its version admitting the Complainant having a S.B. account with them and presenting a cheque on 30.09.2007 for collection, but stated that the Complainant had dropped that cheque in the clearing box for local collection. On 14.09.2007, it sent that cheque for local clearing and subject to realization, cheque amount of Rs.7,100/- was credited to the account of the Complainant. On 17.09.2007, the cheque was returned from the local clearing house as that cheque belongs to out station, therefore Rs.7,100/- which was credited earlier to the account of the Complainant came to be debited on the same day. Thereafter, the cheque presented by the Complainant was realized on 06.10.2007 and that amount was credited to the account of the Complainant by charging Rs.81/- as commission. That it has replied the letter of the Complainant by its reply dated 15.10.2007 and other representations therefore contending that there is no deficiency has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.<br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint allegations, the Complainant and the Senior Manager of the Opposite party Bank have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what has been stated by them in their respective complaint and version. The Complainant has produced his S.B. Account and Pass book and extract of his account. The Opposite party has produced copy of the letter of the Complainant and copies of its reply with account extract of the account of the Complainant. Heard the Complainant and counsel for the Opposite party and perused the records. <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party has caused deficiency by causing delay in collecting the amount of the cheque he had presented to it?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- As narrated above by us, the Opposite party has admitted in this complaint having an S.B. Account with them and presentation of a cheque for collection in a sum of Rs.7,100/- on 11.09.2007. The Complainant has alleged that there has been delay in collection of the cheque amount and in crediting to his account and attributed mistakes in debiting of Rs.7,100/- from his account and also crediting Rs.7,100/- which was the proceeds of a cheque bearing no.8924302, but the Opposite party denying all the allegations has given details of the transaction and also invited our attention to a reply given to the letter of the Complainant.<br /> 7. The contention of the Opposite party that the Complainant on 30.09.2007 dropped his cheque No.30208 in the box maintained in their branch which was meant for dropping cheques of local collection, instead of dropping it in the box meant for collection from out stations has not been disputed by the Complainant. The Opposite party further contended that on 14.09.2007 itself they sent the cheque of the Complainant for collection for local clearing, but the cheque was returned to them from local clearing house on 17.09.2007 stating that his cheque is of out station one. The affidavit evidence of the Opposite party that the Complainant has dropped the cheque in the cheques box maintained for local collection and it was promptly sent for local clearing house on 14.09.2007 itself is also not controverted by the Complainant. Therefore, the fault lies on the Complainant in dropping his cheque in the local collection cheques box. Even then, the cheque was returned to the Opposite party from local clearing house on 17.09.2007 and thereafter the cheque was sent for collection to the out side clearing house and on 06.10.2007 itself the cheque amount was collected and credited to the account of the Complainant. Therefore, in this process the Opposite party it is found when it sent the cheque for local collection on 14.09.2007 on that day itself the Opposite party being confident of collecting the money gave credit to the account of the Complainant without even collection, but when the cheque was returned to them on 17.09.2007 as it was an out station cheque the Opposite party immediately debited that amount and without any loss of time sent the cheque for out side collecting house, got the amount collected and credited to the account of the Complainant which in our view under no imagination can be called as delay and deficiency.<br /> 8. The Complainant when gave a representation to the Opposite party on 09.10.2007 the Opposite party has given a categorical reply and answer on 15.10.2007 which would have convinced the Complainant, but it appears that the Complainant did not get convinced. This reply in our view is convincing and satisfactory to hold that there has been no deficiency in the service of the Opposite party. Further, it could be seen that the Complainant through his letter dated 15.10.2007 addressed to the Complainant finding fault with the Opposite party quoting his S.B. Account wrongly, but on the other hand he himself has committed wrong in referring to a number which is purported to be his account number which is a wrong number. The Complainant further contended as if the Opposite party on 06.10.2007 credited a sum of Rs.7,100/- to his account which is the proceeds of cheque No.008924302 and he had not presented that cheque and contended as if the Opposite party has credited that amount to his account by collecting the money of the cheque of another customer, but this is a wrong notion of the Complainant, because the Complainant presented the cheque bearing No.30208 for collection and that amount is collected and credited to his account on 06.10.2007, but the number shown there as “008924302” is not the cheque number but it is the cheque collection number. Therefore, we find no substance in the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite party has credited to his account a sum of Rs.7,100/- which is the proceeds of a cheque probably belongs to some other customer. It is on consideration of the steps taken by the Opposite party for collection of the cheque amount of the Complainant which has been done with all sincerity and promptness and a suitable reply was also given to the Complainant on 15.10.2007. But the Complainant without understanding the particulars of transaction given by the Opposite party and prompt action of the Opposite party by imaging something which is not at all reflected from the facts of this case has come up with this complaint, which in our view is unsustainable and the Complainant being a literate person appears to have taken a chance for gambling in filling this type of complaint which merits dismissal by imposing cost. Therefore, we answer point nos.1 & 2 in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.500/- to the Opposite party.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />