Karnataka

Kolar

CC/28/2021

Sri.M.C.Narendradas - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.R.Ramachandra Murthy

09 May 2022

ORDER

Date of Filing: 25.10.2021

Date of Disposal: 09.05.2022

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 09^TH DAY OF MAY 2022

PRESENT

SRI.SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SRI.SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.28 OF 2021

Sri. M.C. Narendradas,

S/o.late N.A. Chinnappa,

Aged About 49 Years,

R/at: Taluk Office Road,

Malur Town, Malur.                                                       ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. G.R. Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate)

- V/s –

1) The Manager,

Union Bank Of India,

(Corporation Bank),

Malur Branch, Malur.

(Rep. by Sri.N.G.Vasudev Murthy, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager,

Canara Bank,

J.P. Nagara Branch,

Mysore.

(Exparte)                                                                  …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and prays this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant.

02.   The Brief Facts of the complaint is that, the complainant was advanced the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to one Smt. Vasanthalakshmi.  Further in order to repay the said loan to the complainant the said Smt. Vasanthalakshmi issued cheque  in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant, bearing cheque No. 595973, dated: 05.03.2021 to be drawn on Canara Bank, J.P. Nagara Branch, Mysore.  It is stated that in order to encash the said cheque amount complainant has presented the cheque at his bank i.e., Union Bank of India, Malur Branch on 01.06.2021 within the validity period of the cheque up to 05.06.2021.  It is alleged that the OP No.2 Bank had issued endorsement on 08.07.2021 intimating that, the said cheque was dis-honoured on account of undated cheque.  Hence the complainant alleged that, though the cheque was presented within the period of validity, but due to the negligence of OP No.1 and the OP No.2 has not honoured the cheque.  Hence alleged that Ops Bank being the service providers but caused deficiency in their service.  Further alleged that, complainant has lost an opportunity to initiate the “138 proceedings against the borrower Under the Negotiable Instrument Act and hence complainant has incurred extra stamp duty of Rs.15,000/- in order to file Civil Suit for recovery of the cheque amount and Hence this complaint.

03.   On service of notice OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its version.  However OP No.2 remained absent and accordingly OP No.2 placed exparte.

04.   In the version the OP No.1 has admitted that, the cheque in question was presented by the complainant to his Bank i.e., OP No.1 on 01.06.2021 for encashment. It is also admitted that, the validity of the cheque was up to 05.06.2021 and also admitted that OP No.2 Bank has issued endorsement on 08.07.2021 and same was dishonored on account of undated cheque.

04(a).     The main contention of OP No.1 - Bank is that, earlier Corporation Bank now amalgamated in Union Bank of India situated at Yashwanthapura Branch is a Rural Branch, so for clearing of other Bank cheques they have to send those cheques to the Service Branch only.  Further contended that, due to pandemic and Government Guidelines, Branch was running with 50% of staff at that time and the working hours reduced from 10.00 A.M. to 01.00 P.M.  Further contended that, during the pandemic period Courier Services was also disrupted for which they are unable to send timely on the submitted date.  Further contended that, the complainant presented the cheque in question at the end of the validity period i.e., on 01.06.2021 and it will expire within next three days of its presentation i.e., on 04.06.2021.  Even though the OP No.1 - Bank had send it on the same day 01.06.2021 it would be delivered to the Service Branch on or after 04.06.2021 as per the schedule time of delivery of postal services as 04.06.2021 was the expiry date of the said cheque.   It is presented on the same day it will be cleared on the next date, so it would return with stated cheque.  On the above said grounds it is contended that there is no any deficiency in service.  Further the OP No.1 - Bank has denied all the other allegations of the complainant and ultimately prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

05.   In order to prove the case of the complainant and OP No.1 both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and the supporting   documents.

06.   Heard the arguments of both complainant and OP No.1.

07.   On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and supporting documents, the following points will arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves that, OPs are deficient in their service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What order? 

08.   Our findings to the above points are as follows:-

POINT (1):-              In the Affirmative

POINT (2):-              Partly in the Affirmative

POINT (3):-              As per the final orders

for the following

 

REASONS

09.   POINT (1):-      On perusing the complaint and affidavit evidence of the complainant it discloses that, the main allegation of the complainant is that, he has presented the cheque on 01.06.2021 to the OP No.1 - Bank, wherein for collection of the cheque amount from the OP No.2 - Bank.  However the OP No.2 - Bank has dishonoured the said cheque due to the reason of undated cheque.  Hence the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 - Bank has filed this complaint. 

10.   In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant has filed affidavit evidence along with documents in support of his evidence.  On perusing the affidavit evidence filed by the complainant it reveals that, the complainant has reiterated all the averments made in complaint in his affidavit evidence.  Further on perusing Document No.1 the cheque bearing No. 595973, dated: 05.03.2021 and Document No.3 Deposit / Pay-in-slip these documents clearly discloses that, during the validity period of the cheque the complainant has duly presented the cheque to OP No.1 -  Bank on 01.06.2021.  On perusing Document No.2 refers to Union Bank of India, Service Branch, Bangalore, i.e., OP No.2, it discloses that, the said cheque is dishonored due to post-dated cheque.  On perusing Document Nos.1 to 3 it clearly discloses that, though the complainant has presented the cheque to OP No.1 - Bank during the validity period, it is the bounden duty of the OP No.1 - Bank to send for collection to the Drawee Bank, but OP No.1 - Bank seems to be failed in their duty and belatedly sent the said cheque to OP No.2 - Bank after the closing date of the validity period.  Though the OP No.1 - Bank in its version and so also in the affidavit evidence has contended that, due to pandemic Branch was running with 50% of staff and the working hours reduced from 10.00 AM to 01.00 PM and during that time Courier Services were also disrupted for which they are unable to send the cheque timely on the submitted date and the complainant has presented the cheque at the end of the validity period i.e., on 01.06.2021 and it will expire on 04.06.2021.  When the OP No.1 – Bank themselves has admitted in their evidence that, due to the above pandemic reason they are unable to send the cheque timely, it is the duty of the OP No.1 - Bank and Bank being the financial institution always function with utmost care and diligence.  When the OP No.1 - Bank has received the cheque in question during the validity period of the cheque the OP No.1 - Bank has to take all precautionary measures to provide better service to its customer.  Hence once the cheque is received there has to be a contract or arrangement for rendering service for consideration.  On the basis of the evidence on record it is apparently seen that, OP No.1 - Bank has delayed in collection of the cheque in question. 

11.   Furthermore OP No.1 has produced the Circular dated: 27.05.2021 issued by the Cañar Bank shown as Annexure-01, it clearly discloses that, due to the pandemic the banking working hours shall be from 10.00 AM to 01.00 PM and working hours from 10.00 AM to 02.00 PM (Both for administrative offices and Branches) effective from 01.06.2021 till 05.06.2021, in Clause-06 of the said Circular it reads that, “only basic banking services like (i) Cash transaction, (ii) Clearing services, (iii) Remittances, (iv) Government Business and Transactions, and (v) Sanctioning of fresh Renewal of KCS (Crop loan due to commencing of Kharif).  On perusing the said Circular carefully, it has clearly given instructions to the Banks to consider the clearing services.  Hence the contentions taken by the OP No.1 - Bank that, due to pandemic, though there is a reduced 50% Staff and reduced working hours they have not sent the cheque timely to the OP No.2 - Bank holds no water and it cannot be taken in to consideration as there is no hurdle for the OP No.1 - Bank for clearing services as per the above said Circular. 

12.   For the aforesaid reasons discussed above, we reach to conclusion that, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 - Bank only.  However the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 - Bank and accordingly complaint against OP No.2 - Bank is dismissed.  Hence we answer Point (1) in the Affirmative.

13.   POINT (2):- The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OPs for causing deficiency in service on the ground that, OP No.1 - Bank has not sent the cheque in question to OP No.2 - Bank within the validity period of the cheque.  Hence complainant canvassed that, he lost legal remedy to file complaint Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, against the borrower Smt. Vasanthalakshmi, hence he is forced to file Civil Suit for recovery of the amount for which he has to pay more than Rs.15,000/- and it caused mental agony to him both physically and financially. 

14.   On perusing the cheque as per Document No.1 the date of the cheque is 05.03.2021, as per his own saying he has presented the cheque during the tail end of the validity period of the cheque i.e., on 01.06.2021, but the complainant did not given any explanation for belated presentation of the cheque to OP No.1 - Bank either in his complaint or in his affidavit evidence.  Furthermore the complainant though he has stated in order to recover the above said cheque amount he has to file Civil Suit and to incur expenditure of Rs.15,000/- and above, whereas the complainant has not produced any evidence before this Commission to show that, the complainant has filed the Civil Suit and paid the Court Fee as alleged.  Furthermore there is no evidence from the side of the complainant regarding non-issuance of the other cheque from his borrower Smt. Vasanthalakshmi and he is forced to file Civil Suit.  So also complainant has not produced any cogent evidence for physical and financial sufferings.  However as we discussed above while assigning reasons on Point (1) once the OP No.1 - Bank has accepted the cheque and as per the Banking Circular when there is no hurdle for clearance the OP No.1 - Bank being the service provider has failed in its duty by not sending the cheque for collection within a time bound manner that leads to causing of deficiency in service to its customer (complainant).  Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that, OP No.1 - Bank on account of his deficiency in service we hereby direct the OP No.1 - Bank to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant and it will sufficient to meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly we answer Point (2) partly in the affirmative.

15.   POINT (3):-      In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is hereby allowed-in –part with cost as against OP No.1 – Bank and Dismissed as against OP No.2 - Bank.

02.   The OP No.1 – Bank is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/-towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP No.1 – Bank shall pay interest to the complainant at the rate of 9% per annum on compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of the order till realization.

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 09^th DAY OF MAY 2022)

 

 

 

        LADY MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT