D.O.F:25/01/2019
D.O.O:29/04/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.22/2019
Dated this, the 29th day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Abdulla Madari
S/o Madari
Al Hamdolilab Manzil
Deenar Nagar, Ichilangod (P.O) : Complainant
Kasaragod Dist
(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)
And
1. The Manager
Kerala Gramin Bank
Bandiyod (Branch)
P.O Mangalpady - 671324
Kasaragod (Dist)
(Adv: Shashidhara.A)
2. Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd : Opposite Party
Pinpri Branch, Pune
Radhesh Estate, Block No.121
Pune – 411017
Maharashtra.
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant and his brother sold out their partnership business at Pune for Rs 32 lacks and each of them got Rs.16 lakhs towards their respective share. The complainant obtained Rs. 3 lakh in cash and a cheque for the balance amount of Rs.13 Iakhs drawn on the Opposite Party No. 2, Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune , and his brother obtained a cheque for the entire amount of Rs. 16 lakhs of the Opposite Party No. 2. Cosmos Co-op Bank, Pune.
The complainant presented his cheque for Rs.13 lakhs for collection through the Opposite Party No.1 Kerala Gramin Bank Bandyod Branch and his brother presented his cheque for Rs.16 lakhs for collection through the Canara Bank. Hosangadi Branch. Thereafter, both the cheques were honoured. But amount credited to the account of the complainant was only Rs.12,95,573.45/- after deducting Rs. 3605.55 by the Opposite Party No.1 towards service charge, where as in his brother's case only Rs.169/- was deducted as service charge , by the Canara Bank. Hosangadi Branch for Rs 16 Iakhs.
The Service charge of Rs.3605.55/- levied by the Opposite Parties is exhorbitant, illegal unreasonable and against the RBI rules. When enquired with Opposite Party No.1, it was told that Opposite Party No. 2 is responsible for that. For clarification the complainant had to go to Pune twice spending Rs 7,000/- and was told that Opposite Party No.1 is responsible for the deduction. Due to the illegal unreasonable deduction of exhorbitant amount from the account by the Opposite Party the complainant was put to great mental agony . Hence this complaint is filed for directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs 25,000/- as compensation and costs.
The opposite party entered appearance and filed written Version.
As per the written version of the Opposite Party No.1, the complaint is false frivoldus and not sustainable at law. The alleged incident was held in 2014 and therefore the complaint is barred by limitation. It is admitted that the complainant had presented the cheque dated 30.07 2014 for Rs.13,00,000/- drawn on Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch for collection before them. The Bank immediately sent the cheque for collection directly to the drawee bank , with a request to credit the proceeds through RTGS . But instead of crediting the amount through RTGS the Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch sent a DD for Rs.12,95,573.45 payable at HDFC Bank kasaragod , by deducting collection charges of Rs. 4,426.55 including DD commission. The Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch issued a DD for a lesser amount of Rs.12,95,573.45. There was no request on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 to send the proceeds by way of DD . There after the complainant submitted a complaint dated 07.07. 2016 in the matter and immediatly after receiving that complaint the Opposite Party No.1 made necessary enquiry and found that only Rs.179/- was taken by them towards collection charges. The OPNo. 1 took up the matter with the Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch by writing letter but they didn't respond in writing . The Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch is a necessary party in this case.
There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Originally there was only Opposite Party No.1 and after the filing of their written version, the Opposite Party No. 2, the Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch has been impleaded, as per the order in the l A 109 /2019 and they filed their written version in the form of an affidavit.
As per the version of Opposite Party No. 2, the incident took place in 2014 and the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The Opposite Party No. 2 admit that the complainant deposited his cheque of Rs.13,00,000/- with his banker Opposite Party No. 1, who sent to Opposite Party No .2 for collection. It was out station clearing. The Opposite Party No. 2 has no branches in Kerala state. Therefore proceeds of the cheque were to be sent by demand draft of such bank, which has branch at Kasaragod. Therefore the Opposite Party No. 2 issued DD drawn on HDFC Bank bearing No. 249671 dated 14.07.2014 and sent along with invoice to the Opposite Party No .1. For sending that DD, as per the policy of Opposite Party No 2 , the DD commission @ 3/- per thousand was deducted, service tax @ Rs. 480.55, handling charge Rs.28/- and postage Rs.30/- were deducted from the cheque amount. This deduction is legitimate based on the policy of Opposite Party No. 2. The RBl does not stipulate any rate on the commission for DD to be taken by the respective bank. It is depending on the policy of the Bank at the relevant time. The Opposite Party No. 2 never called the complainant to Pune for anything and not responsible for his travel expenses. There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No. 2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext. A 1 and Ext. A 2 are marked .The Ext - A1 is the Bank Pass book of complainant with OPNo.1 Bank, Ext. A 2 is the Bank Pass book of complainant's brother with Canara Bank.
The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence but they produced certain documents .The documents produced by Opposite Party No.1 are marked as Ext. B1 to Ext. B8.
The document Ext B1 is the copy of cheque issued in the name of complainant. Ext.B 2 is the original covering Ietter issued by Opposite Party No. 2 to Opposite Party No.1, Ext. B3 is the copy of the DD issued by Opposite Party No. 2 to OPNo.1, Ext. B4 the copy of the letter issued by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No. 2, Ext B5 is the original request letter issued by complainant to Opposite Party No.1, Ext. B6 is copy of the Letter issued by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant Ext. B7 is the copy of the Letter issued by the complainant to chairman, KGBank, Ext. B8 is the original served copy of the letter issued by Manger ,PIanning and Development ,HO, KG Bank. The documents produced by Opposite Party No .2 along with their version (affidavit) is marked as Ext. B 9. The Ext. B9 is a copy of Book let for Commission and charges.
In this case both the Opposite Parties, in their version raised the contentions that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant filed IA No. 272/2019 to condone the delay of 970 days in filing the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 filed counter to the IA raising serious objections. This commission opted to keep the I A in abeyance, so as to consider the issue along with main case at final stage.
There fore based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party ?
3. If so, what is the relief?
Therefore the first issue to be considered is the question of maintainability as regards to the Iimitation.
In this case both the Opposite Parties in their version raised the contentions that the complaint is barred by limitation. They argue that the incident was occurred in 2014 and the complaint is filed in the year 2019. Therefore the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation.
The complainant filed IA No. 272/2019 to condone the delay of 970 days in filing the complaint. In the accompanying affidavit to the IA, the complainant states on oath that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service by collecting illegitimate service charges without informing him . He has been approaching the opposite parties for resolution of the grievance. However the opposite parties have been postponing the same under some pretext. He has visited Pune twice to meet Opposite Party No .2, for the purpose .They assured of looking in to the matter. By believing their assurance, he has not exhausted his legal remedies till January 2019. Finally in January 2019, he was constrained to file the complainant as the opposite parties failed to resolve the matter. There is no will full delay on his part.
The Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads as follows:
(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period :
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
Here it has come to light that the complainant has been approaching the opposite parties personally and writing letters. Ext. B4 to B8 would show that aspect. Ext. B4 would show that the Opposite Party No. 1 intimated the Opposite Party No. 2
by writing about the complaint regarding very high service charge collected. The reply of Opposite Party No. 2 was awaited.
But the Opposite Party No. 2 never replied in writing .They were silent on the matter all along the period. They came with their justification for levying the service charge only after receiving the notice from this commission.
So this commission is of the view that there is reasonable ground for the delay caused in filing the complaint. Therefore the delay is to be condoned and the complaint is maintainable to that effect.
As regards to the other issues, the specific case of the complainant is that when he presented a cheque for Rs.13,00,000/- for collection, the opposite parties levied exorbitant, illegal and unreasonable service charge of Rs. 3605.55 against the RBI rules. When enquired with Opposite Party No.1 it was told that Opposite Party No. 2 is responsible for that. For clarification the complainant had to go to Pune twice spending Rs 7,000/- and was told that Opposite Party No.1 is responsible for the deduction. Due to the illegal and unreasonable deduction of exhorbitant amount from the account by the Opposite Party the complainant was put to great mental agony.
The Opposite Party No.1 states that there is no service deficiency on the part of them and immediately after receiving the cheque from the complainant, they sent the cheque for collection directly to the drawee bank, which was Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch with a request to credit the proceeds through RTGS . But instead of crediting the amount through RTGS the Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch sent a DD for Rs.12,95,573.45 payable at HDFC Bank Kasaragod , by deducting collection charges of Rs. 4,426.55 including DD commission. The Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch issued a DD for a lesser amount of Rs.12,95,573.45/-.
There was no request on the part of the OPNo.1 to send the proceeds by way of DD. There after the complainant submitted a complaint dated 07.07. 2016on the matter and immediately after receiving that complaint the Opposite Party No.1 made necessary enquiry and found that only Rs.179/- was taken by them towards collection charges. The Opposite Party No 1 took up the matter with the Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch, by writing letter but they didn't responded in writing.
The Opposite Party No. 2 argue that they have no branches in Kerala state and therefore proceeds of the cheque were to be sent by demand draft of such bank which has branch at Kasaragod. So the Opposite Party No. 2 issued DD drawn on HDFC Bank bearing No. 249671 dated 14.07.2014 and sent along with invoice to the Opposite Party No .1. For sending that DD, as per the policy of Opposite Party No 2 ,the DD commission @ 3/- per thousand was deducted, service tax @ Rs. 480.55, handling charge Rs.28/- and postage Rs.30/- were deducted from the cheque amount. This deduction is legitimate based on the policy of Opposite Party No 2 .The RBl does not stipulate any rate on the commission for DD to be taken by the respective bank. It is depending on the policy of the policy of the Bank at the relevant time.
Here it is pertinent to note that the OP No.1 sent the cheque for collection directly to the OPNo.2, drawee bank , the Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch with a request to credit the proceeds through RTGS . But instead of crediting the amount through RTGS the Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch sent a DD for Rs.12,95,573.45 payable at HDFC Bank kasaragod by deducting collection charges of Rs. 4,426.55 including DD commission. The Cosmos Co-op Bank Pune Branch issued a DD for a lesser amount of Rs.12,95,573.45. There was no request on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 to send the proceeds by way of DD.
The Opposite Party No. 2 has no case that they have no RTGS facility. Everybody knows that RTGS or Real-Time Gross Settlement is a money transfer facility , where there is a continuous and real-time settlement of fund-transfers, individually on a transaction-by-transaction basis (without netting) . Here the requisition was for RTGS. Instead, the Opposite Party No .2 issued a DD for the amount after deducting a considerably huge amount towards DD charges. For issuing a DD there must be a application with an undertaking to remit the prescribed charge. Such an application is not there in this case. That means the Opposite Party No. 2 issued DD only to cause loss to the complainant.
In the absence of any rebuttal evidence this commission of the View that there is service deficiency as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party No. 2, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony. Since there is no evidence of service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1, they are exonerated.
Therefore the Opposite Party No. 2 is liable to pay compensation for that. This commission hold that Rs.20,000/- will be a reasonable amount of compensation.
ln the result , the complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay a total amount of Rs. Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards the costs to the complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the Judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Bank pass book
A2- Bank Passbook
B1- copy of cheque
B2- original covering letter
B3- Copy of the DD
B4- A letter Dt: 23/07/2014
B5- A Letter Dt: 08/12/2014
B6- A letter Dt: 12/12/2014
B7 – The copy of the letter issued by the complainant to chairman
B8- A letter Dt:25/11/2016
B9- Copy of Book let for commission and charges
Witness Examined
Pw1- Abdulla Maderi
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
