Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/92/2015

M.P.Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Syndicate Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

K.Vaitheeswaran

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on:  07.05.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  06.02.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY  THE 06^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

 

C.C.NO.92/2015

 

 

M.P.Ashok Kumar,

Flat No.F-4, AP-Anugraha Apartment,

No.2, Chinmaiya New Colony,

Second Main  Road,

Perambur,

Chennai – 600 011.

                                                                                        ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

The Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

No.159/71, Madhavaram High Road,

Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  : 12.06.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran, Mrs.Radhika

                                                                    Chandrasekar, Mr.V.S.Monoj,

                                                                    Mr.J.Kothandaraman

 

Counsel for Opposite party                     :Chenthoori Pugazendhi, K.Surendar

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the cheque return charges of Rs.338/- and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is having a Savings Bank Account with Bank of Maharastra, Anna Salai branch. He issued a cheque No.017510 dated 23.04.2014 for an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- in favour of his client M/s Global Designs and the same was deposited by his client with his bankers Opposite Party. M/s Global Designs told the Complainant that the cheque was issued to him has been returned for insufficient fund. The Complainant checked with his banker vide letter dated 13.02.2015 has clearly informed the reason for not honouring the cheque.  When the cheque was presented on 26.04.2014 the Opposite Parties end committed an error by mentioning the amount as Rs.26,500/- instead of Rs.2,65,000/- and thereby the Opposite Party committed irregularity. Due to pressure from his client, the Complainant paid the amount to him through RTGS on 29.04.2014 a sum of Rs.2,65,000/-.  The returned cheque was represented again for clearing without the consent of the Complainant and till date no explanation offered by the Opposite Party for such representation. Due to the wrong committed by the Opposite Party a sum of Rs.169/- was deducted from the Complainant account towards bank charges. Due to such negligent act in the Opposite Party the Complainant suffered with mental agony. Therefore, the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund the bank charges to him along with compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party refutes maintainability of the Complaint that is purported to be presented under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant herein does not fall under any of the four categories provided under Section 12 of the Act and therefore does not have any locus standi to prefer the Complaint. More particularly, it is evident from the Complaint that the Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party herein and there are no goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant. It is therefore apparent that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party and as such there is no cause of action for instituting the Complaint. While, it is the admitted case of the Complainant that he is a consumer of Bank of Maharasthra, he has wantonly dragged the Opposite Party into the realm of this proceeding with no cause whatsoever, for the reasons best known to him. It further transpires from the Complaint that the issue pertains to a transaction between the Complainant and his ‘client’ M/s. Global designs. Therefore the transaction being commercial in nature is out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the Complaint has to be dismissed. It is utterly false to state that the Complainant’s cheque was returned by the Opposite Party as ‘funds insufficient’ even though he maintained sufficient balance with his banker, Bank of Maharastra. A perusal of the concerned return memo annexed as Document No.2 in the Complainant’s typed set of papers shows that the cheque was returned on 2^nd May, 2015. It is evident from the Complainant’s bank statement annexed as Document No.3 in the Complainant’s typed set of papers that he did not have sufficient funds to clear the cheque drawn for a sum of Rs.2,65,000/-. Further, the cheque was returned only by the Complainant’s banker namely, Bank of Maharashtra and the Opposite Party cannot be hauled up for the same. Hence the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.    

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4.POINT : 1

           Admittedly the Complainant is a customer and the Savings Bank Account Holder of the Bank of Maharastra, Anna Salai Branch and he is having cheque facility. He issued Ex.A1 cheque  No. 017510 dated 23.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- to his client M/s Gloobal Designs  and he  deposited the said cheque  with his banker viz., the Opposite Party/Syndicate Bank.

          5. According to the Complainant, his client informed that the said cheque was returned for insufficient funds, when he presented with the Opposite Party and after the Complainant approached his bankers and obtained Ex.A4 letter which reveals that at the Opposite Party end committed an error by mentioning the amount as Rs.26,500/- instead of  Rs.2,65,000/-  and further without his consent again the same cheque was represented and his banker charged banking charges of Rs.169/- for each time and therefore, the Opposite Party returned the cheque for insufficient funds even though he is having sufficient fund in his account and further without his consent he has represented the cheque is fault and therefore the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.

          6. The Opposite Party replied that the Complainant is not a customer and therefore, there is no privity of contract with him and he has not provided any service to him and further the cheque was issued for commercial transaction and therefore the Complaint itself is not maintainable.  Further, he argued that Ex.A4 statement not issued by him and in Ex.A2 return memo he has rightly endorsed the amount of Rs.2,65,000/- and however the return reason given by the Complainant’s  banker funds insufficient has been recorded by him and apart from that no document filed by the Complainant to show that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          7. The cheque issued by the Complainant to his client is presented by him to his bankers /Opposite Party and the Opposite Party in turn sent the cheque to the Complainant bankers and thereby the Opposite Party providing service to the Complainant also. Further, the Opposite Party providing service only in passing of the cheque to his client and therefore the cheque issued for commercial transaction by the Complainant is immaterial. Therefore, it is held that the Complainant is a Consumer and the Complaint is maintainable in this Forum.

          8. Admittedly Ex.A4 letter issued by the Complainant banker, Bank of Maharashtra mentioning that a sum of Rs.26,500/- on 26.04.2014 and Rs.2,65,000/- on 30.04.2015 in respect of the cheque issued by him. Nowhere, in Ex.A4, it has been stated that the amount of Rs.26,500/- and funds insufficient was furnished by the Opposite Party/Bank and in turn the Ex.A4 letter was issued by the Complainant’s banker. The Complainant’s client only presented the cheque only with the Opposite Party.     In Ex.A2  return memo issued by the Opposite Party,  it has been clearly stated that when the cheque presented for clearing in Chennai clearing house and returned by the drawee bank as funds insufficient mentioning in the return reason. So, as per Ex.A2 the cheque was returned for insufficient fund only by bank of Maharastra (drawee bank) and accordingly the Opposite Party also returned the same. To controvert the contents of Ex.A2, the bank of Maharastra alone can answer. The Complainant has not added his banker as party in the Complaint. In Ex.A4 also there is no mention about the Opposite Party. Therefore, in the absence of bank of Maharastra as a party to this case and as per Ex.A2 the drawee bank only returned the cheque in question, we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

9. Further, Ex.A3 is the statement of account of the Complainant issued by the bank of Maharashtra. In that statement on 26.04.2014 and 30.04.2014 cheque dishonor charges of Rs.169/- was debited from his account on each date. The cheque number is 017510. Nowhere, in Ex.A3 statement the cheque number was mentioned in respect of debiting the bank charges.  Further the Complainant alleged that the cheque was presented without his knowledge. It is not clear whether the Complainant client represented the cheque for second time or the Opposite Party himself represented the cheque or whether the cheque was encashed or not for the second time is not known. Therefore, considering the forgoing discussions, we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

10. POINT NO :2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.               

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 06^th day of February 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Cheque

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Return Memo from Syndicate Bank (Opposite

                                                   Party )

 

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Bank Account Statement

 

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Letter dt.13.02.2015

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      ……. NIL…….

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT