District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member CC. No.32 /2010 Roshan Alex, S/o.K.V.Alex, Managing Partner, Queen Pharma Homeo Store, No.1, CSI Shopping Complex, T.B.Road, Palakkad – 14. - Complainant (By Adv.K.R.Nair & Anitha) Vs The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Palakkad Main Branch, Surya Complex, T.B.Road, Palakkad – 14 (By Adv.P.P.Gopalakrishnan & M.P.Ambika) O R D E R By Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Complaint in brief is as follows: The complainant is having an account being numbered as 00000067010593568 in the opposite party bank and is actively conducting transactions. The complainant is a sales tax assessee having 32090542244 TIN and 32090542244C CST registration and he used to clear the payment towards the sales tax through the cheque of the opposite party bank. The complainant issued a cheque bearing No.489465 dt.14/03/09 to the Sales Tax Department for clearing the dues for the month of February 2009. Even after having sufficient amount in the account, the said cheque was dishonoured by the opposite party bank. This has caused the Sales Tax department to impose a fine of Rs.10,000/- upon the complainant. The complainant had to pay the cheque amount with 1% interest along with the fine of Rs.10,000/- to the Sales Tax department. It was a mistake committed by the opposite party because of which the complainant had to suffer the loss along with mental agony. The opposite party has apologised to the complainant for their default in service via letter dtd.23/05/09. The above act of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service on their part and they are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- penalty paid by the complainant to the Sales Tax department and also with an another amount of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and cost of proceedings. Opposite party filed version with following contentions. In the complaint it is seen that relief is claimed against State Bank of Travancore, Main Branch, Palakkad. The Bank is not made a party in the above complaint. The complainant was provided with an over draft facility limited to Rs.5,40,000/-. The alleged cheque for a sum of Rs.34,771/- was presented for collection on 30/03/09 and on the said date the balance in the account was only Rs.19,000/-. On the same day another cheque issued by the complainant for a sum of Rs.18,385/- also came up for clearing. The bank is justified in its conduct of returning the cheque due to insufficiency of fund. As a matter of goodwill gesture and courtesy the bank had expressed regret for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. The complainant is under a misconceived notion that he can take advantage of such letter issued by the bank to make unjust and unlawful gain. Prior to the filing of the complaint the complainant had approached the bank for a loan and the bank had then informed the complainant that sanction of the loan is possible only after the closing of the financial year. The complainant had threatened the bank that he would press into service the regret letter issued by the bank if the loan is not sanctioned. So that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and dismiss the complaint with cost. Both parties filed affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence on the side of opposite party. Heard both parties and perused the documents produced. Issues to be considered are; 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? 2. If so, what is the relief and cost? The case of the complainant is that he had issued a cheque bearing No.489465 dt.14/3/09 of opposite party to the Sales Tax department for clearing the dues for the month of February 2009. Even after having sufficient amount in the account the said cheque was dishonoured by the opposite party bank. So the sales tax department imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- upon the complainant along with cheque amount with 1% interest. The mistake committed by the opposite party caused to suffer a lot of mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant. One of the contention of the opposite party is that the bank is not made a party in the complaint. But it is seen in the version and affidavit filed by the opposite party is signed by the Chief Manager for State Bank of Travancore. Hence the contention of opposite party is unsustainable. The main grievance of the complainant is that even after having sufficient amount in the account, the cheque No.489465 dt.14/3/09 was dishonoured by the bank. The mistake committed by the bank is proved by Ext.A6, the letter dt.23/5/09 which is issued by the opposite party bank to the Commercial Tax Officer, Palakkad. It is relevant to note the wordings of Ext.A6 letter issued by the opposite party, which is as follows. “Although there was sufficient balance in the account as on that date, we have by mistake returned the cheque stating the reason “funds insufficient’. We regret very much for the inconvenience caused to you in this regard”. It is interesting to note that either opposite party or complainant has not produced the statement of account as on that date. If the bank dishonoured the cheque even after having sufficient amount in the account it can be considered as deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Bank has not proved that there is no sufficient amount in the account of the complainant as on that day. From the above discussions, we are of the view that the bank has committed deficiency of service on their part. In the result, the complaint allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) being the amount paid as penalty along with Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation. Pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of October, 2010 Sd/- Smt.Seena.H, President Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 08/03/2010 Appendix Witnesses examined on the side of complainant Nil Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Notice No.32090542244 dt.8/5/09 issued Commercial Tax Officer, Palakkad Ext.A2 – Letter dt.14/05/09 sent by complainant to The Commercial Tax Officer Ext.A3 – Proceedings of Commercial Tax Officer dt.15/05/09 Ext.A4 – Form No.12 Ext.A5 – Letter dt.22/06/09 sent by complainant to the Commercial Tax Officer Ext.A6 – Letter No.AGM IV/KKD/C&I dt.23/05/09 sent by opposite party to the Commercial Tax Officer, Palakkad. Cost (Allowed) Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
| | [HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K] Member[HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair] Member | | 
