Complaints filed on: 03-08-2022

                                                      Disposed on:31-01-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

P R E S E N T

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 119 OF 2022

Someshwarachar

S/o Late Chikkaveerachar,

A/a 69 years, Lokammanahalli Village,

Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk,

Tumakuru District-572212.

……….Complainant

(By Sri. Kishor R, Adv)

V/s

1. The Manager, State Bank of  India

Banasandra Branch,

Turuvekere Taluk-572212,

2. The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank,

Nagasandra Branch, HMT Main Road,

Nelagodaranahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk,

Bengaluru District-560073.

(OP No.1- served absent)

((OP No.2- by T.N.Ajay BA. LL.B Adv.,)  

                                                :O R D  E R :

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, LADY  MEMBER

This complaint was filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties with prayer to grant compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with 12% interest PA from the date of presentation of cheque.

2.       The 1^st Opposite Party is the Manager, State Bank of India, Banasandra Branch, Turuvekere (hereinafter called as OP No.1) and 2^nd Opposite Party is the Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Nagasandra Branch, Nelagodaranahalli, Bangalore North, Bangalore (hereinafter called as OP No.2).

3.       It is the case of the complainant that the complainant submitted cheque dated 05.03.2022 bearing no.000022, on 02.06.2022 in OP No.1 bank, which was in the name of the complainant, belongs to the OP No.2. OP No.1 has taken steps to send the said cheque with delay only on 04.06.2022 to the payee bank i.e., OP No.2. After repeated enquiries, the OP NO.1 issued on endorsement on 17.06.2022 as “Instrument out dated”. After serious demands by the complainant, OP No.1 has issued explanatory letter on 18.06.2022 as stating that, the processing of the cheque is delayed due to “Technical issue”. The complainant has failed in his plans to make use of said cheque by investing it to generate future income by the negligent act and deficiency in service of OPs. Hence this complaint.

4.       After sufficient service of notice by this Commission one Shri.ATN Advocate orally undertakes to file power to OP No.1, but giving opportunities any vakalath has not filed on behalf of OP No.1 and OP No.1 remains absent. OP No.2 has appeared through counsel and filed version.

5.       OP No.2 has submitted that, complaint against the OP No.2 has not maintainable in law and OP No.2 has not aware transaction between complainant and OP NO.1. OP No.2 had received the scanned images of the cheque from the OP No.1 on 06.06.2022 for consideration/dealing settlement, Since the validity of the said cheque was expired being the date of the cheque was 05.03.2022, as per the guidelines of the R.B.I and NI Act, the said cheque was not considered for honour by the OP No.2 and OP No.2 had returned the cheque on the same day to the OP No.1 with a reason as “Cheque outdated”. Further OP No.2 submitted that, OP No.2 has not made any deficiency in service. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complainant against the OP No.2.

6.       The complainant filed his affidavit with twelve documents which were marked as Ex.C1 to C12 and the complainant further produced two documents with memo in the time of his arguments. One Sri.Umesh.B.R., Branch Manager of OP No.2 filed his affidavit on behalf of the OP No.2.

7.       We heard the arguments of both complainant and OP No.2 and gone through the written arguments of complainant and the OP No.2 and points that would arise for determination are as under.

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OP  No.1?

2. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2?

3. It is complainant entitled for the reliefs sought for?

8.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

                             Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.

                             Point No.2 : In the Negative.

                             Point No.3 : As per final order for the below.

:REASONS:

Point Nos.(1) to (3)

9.       The counsel for the complainant has argued that, the complainant is the customer of the OP No.1 and he has submitted the cheque dated 05.03.2022 bearing no.000022 on 02.06.2022 which was in the name of the complaint belongs to OP No.2 bank. Ex.C9/ copy of the Pass book of the complainant establish that, the complainant is the customer of the OP No.1 having Account No.64134173522. Ex.C1/ Original cheque and Ex.C2/ counter receipt for cheque presentation proves that, the complainant has presented the cheque bearing no.000022 before OP No.1 on 02.06.2022. Further counsel for the complainant has argued that, OP No.1 has taken steps to send the said cheque only on 04.06.2022 to the payee bank i.e., OP No.2 with delay in processing the cheque. Ex.C4/Explanatory letter from OP No.1 to complainant dated 18.06.2022 is reveals that, OP No.1 has sent the said cheque on 04.06.2022 with the help technical support from CCPC. The counsel for the complainant submitted that, OP No.1 bank has issued an endorsement dated 17.06.2022 stating the cheque issued by the complainant is “Instrument out dated” and after serious demands by the complainant OP No.1 has issued an explanatory letter dated 18.06.2022. Ex.C3/endorsement dated 17.06.2022, Ex.C4/Explanatory letter dated 18.06.2022 proves the same. Ex.C5/Copy of the legal notice, reveals that, complainant got issued legal notice to OP No.1 on 20.06.2022 and the complainant also produced the Ex.C8/reply of OP No.1 for legal notice issued by the complainant. In which the OP No.1 has denied their deficiency in service.

10.     Advocate for OP No.2 has argued that, OP No.2 has not aware of the transactions held between the complainant and OP No.1 and the OP No.2 bank has not received any notice from the complainant. Further Counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that the OP No.2 had received the scanned image of the cheque from the OP No.1 on 06.06.2022 for consideration/clearing settlement, since the validity of the said cheque was expired. Hence OP No.2 has returned the cheque on the same day to the OP No.1 with a reason as “Cheque out dated”. OP No.1 has not appeared before this Commission and not produced any documents to show that the OP No.1 has sent the scanned image of the said cheque was sent only on 04.06.2022. It is well settled law that validity of cheque remains continuous for three months after issuance of cheque. Hence we have not found any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 in returning the cheque with reason as “Cheque out dated”, when it receives the scanned image of cheque on 06.06.2022 as because the validity of the said cheque was completed on 05.06.2022 itself.  Hence the complaint shall be liable to dismiss against the OP No.2.

11.     According to Ex.C4, the OP No.1 has admitted that, the complainant has presented in the cheque bearing no.000022 on 02.06.2022 in the evening. Ex.C11/ Chennai Bankers’ Clear House (CBCH) Procedural Guidelines For Cheque Truncation system produced by the complainant reveals that the time line of clearing CTS Standard Instrument. As per the illustrative timeline drawing of the clearing cycle for CTS in southern Grid Bankers Clearing House, the Cheque should be clear within 24 hour in working days. OP No.1 has admitted that OP No.1 has not able to send the scanned image to OP No.2 due to technical issues and the same scanned image has sent to OP No.2 on 04.06.2022. But OP No.2 has submitting that, OP No.1 has sent the scanned image of said cheque will be sent by the OP No.1 on 06.06.2022. The OP No.1 has failed to prove that, they had sent the scanned image of the said cheque on 04.06.2022. The OP No.1 has liable for inconvenience caused to its customer by the technical issue of the OP No.1 bank. Ex.C9/Copy of the passbook clearly reflecting that, on 06.06.2022, the cheque bearing no.000022 for Rs.2,00,000/- is cleared by OP No.2 and OP No.1 credited Rs.2,00,000/- to the account of the complainant on the same day i.e.06.06.2022 it is showing that in the passbook that instrument outdated and Rs.2,00,000/- was debited by the OP No.1 from the account of the complainant. This Act of the OP No.1 clearly reveals the deficiency in service of the OP No.1.

12.     The complainant has submitted the Ex.C10/ Copy of the Frequently Asked Questions to RBI about cheque Truncation system, updated as on 31.10.2022. Which is reveals that, “ Truncation is the process of stopping the flow of physical cheque issued by a drawer at some point by the presenting bank en-route to the paying bank branch”. And answer for point no.5 is clearly telling as “CTS enables fast and cheap realization of funds to customers as compared to traditional mechanism. Under grid based CTS clearing, all cheques drawn on bank branches falling within the grid jurisdiction are treated and cleared as local cheques. According to the answers given by the RBI the OP No.1 and 2 are as comes under one grid and cheque transaction between these OP No.1 and 2 was considered as local cheque. As per answer for question no.10 in Ex.C10 Karnataka comes under the Chennai Grid. The complainant has produced the Ex.C11/Copy of the Chennai Bankers, Clearing House, Procedural Guidelines for cheque Truncation system, which clearly reflecting the clearing timings for CTS Standard Instruments. W.e.f 01.06.2018 as below:

On perusal of the above Table, the complainant has presented the cheque on 02.06.2022 as per above table the scanned image should be forward to OP No.2 by OP No.1 on the same day i.e. 02.06.2022. But according to OP No.1, the scanned image of the cheque forwarded to OP No.2 with delay, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1. Hence OP No.1 shall liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

13.      The Complainant has prayed to grant compensation of Rs.3,50,000=00 with interest @ 12% PA from the date of presentation of the cheque till realization. The counsel for the complainant has argued that, the complainant has failed to generate the future income by investing the cheque amount due to the deficiency in service of OPs. To prove the same the complainant has produced copy of the permanent Registration Certificate and Registration Certificate of Establishment of his business, which was valid up to 31.12.2022?  But the complainant has not produced any transaction details to show about the loss accrued up to Rs.3,50,000/- and the complainant also has an option to get the another cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence prayer of the complainant for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of presentation of cheque was not considered.  But the OP No.1 has compelled the complainant to approach this commission and being a Public Institution, the OP No.1 has not come forward to defend the case. Hence OP No.1 shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Accordingly we pass the following;

:ORDER:

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part with cost.

The OP No.1 is directed to pay Compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

Further, OP No.1 is directed to comply the above order within the 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order, failing which, penalty of Rs.100/- per day shall be payable by the OP No.1 after lapse of 45 days from the date of order to till the date of compliance.

The complaint against the OP No.2 is dismissed.

Supply free order copy to both parties as free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31^st day of January, 2023).

LADY MEMBER                       MEMBER                          PRESIDENT