IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 16th day of October, 2021.
Filed on 10-07-2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.155/2020
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Visakh Pilip Abraham The Manager, Bank Of India
S/o Philip Abraham Alappuzha Branch
Kureekkattu House East of Iron Bridge
Vellakkinar CCSB Road, Alappuzha
Alappuzha. (Adv. Sri. P.K.Mathew)
(Adv. Sri. K.NVenugopala Panicker)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case recapitulated is as follows:-
Complainant is having SB account with the opposite party bank as account No.854010110003380. On 7/10/2019 he had a balance of Rs.2,09,971.30Ps /- in the account. On 7/10/2019 he issued a cheque bearing no. 000025 for Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of his father Philip Abraham. The cheque was sent for collection through IDBI Alappuzha and it was dishonoured with a reason ‘contact drawer/ drawee bank’, even though there was sufficient fund in the account of the drawer. The said act of dishonouring the cheque, while there was sufficient funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque amounts deficiency of service and is a breach of contract between the bank and the account holder. Hence the complainant is entitled for exemplary damage. In addition to that the opposite party had charged Rs.118/- towards dishonor charge and the IDBI charged Rs. 295/- towards collection charges. So the complainant sustained monetary loss of Rs.118/- in addition to the loss of reputation and mental agony.
2. When the cheque was dishonoured the drawee of the cheque scolded the complainant and it affected his reputation, integrity and honesty. The drawee happened to get an impression that the complainant had issued the cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- without balance in his account causing ill reputation, mental distress and shame to him. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the irresponsible and illegal act and breach of contract. In addition to the above complainant is also entitled for Rs.118/- being the charges collected from him. However complainant is limiting his claim to Rs. 10,000/-. Hence complainant may be allowed to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ of 9% per annum from the opposite party.
3. Opposite party filed a version which can be summarized as follows:-
It is true that a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn in SB account No. 854010110003380 was presented on 7/10/2019 before Chennai Service Branch for payment by the IDBI. As per the RBI guidelines for prevention of cheque related frauds the parent branches official should contact to the customers registered Mobile/Telephone after uploading of cheques in clearing under CTS (Cheque Truncation System) and having value of Rs. 2 lakhs above to establish the genuineness of such cheques. Here since cheque is for Rs.2,00,000/- which is classified as high value clearing and has to be passed after getting confirmation from the customer. On 7/10/2019 there was a State Holiday in Kerala under the Negotiable Instruments Act whereas it was not a holiday in Tamilnadu where the cheque was presented. So Parent Branch (Aleppey) was not aware of the said cheque presentation in clearing and hence it could not get confirmation from the customer regarding the genuineness of the cheque. Hence the cheque was not passed by the Chennai Service Branch of Bank of India as it did not get confirmation from the parent branch. However the cheque was again presented on 10/10/2019 and was passed. The bank also did not collect any cheque return charges. The bank had acted as per RBI rules.
4. The allegation that due to the act of the bank the drawee lost the impression about the complainant is false. Opposite party bank had only complied with the RBI circulars and are applicable to all. The bank had explained all these facts to the complainant and his father and the demand of the complainant is illegal and against sound principles of Banker and customer relationship. The bank cannot accede to his illegal demand as it is unheard of law and sound principles and therefore the bank had sent a reply stating the true facts. The allegation that the complainant suffered distress, shame, mental agony, etc are false and it is stated only to suit the complaint. There is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety on the part of the bank. Compensation claimed are highly exorbitant and not based on any factual foundation. There was no defective service or deficiency of service or dereliction of duty on the part of the bank. Complainant has no cause of action and hence the complaint may be dismissed.
5. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration.
1. Whether there was deficiency of service from the part of opposite party bank as alleged?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest from the opposite party as prayed for ?
3. Reliefs and costs?
6. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 from the side of the complainant. and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B8 from the side of the opposite party.
7. Point no.1 & 2 :-
PW1 is the father of the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 and A2. Later Ext.A3 was also marked. During cross examination Ext.B1 to B6 were marked.
8. RW1 is the Branch Head(Manager) of the Aleppey branch of Bank of India. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B7 and B8.
9. Complainant is having a SB account with the opposite party M/s Bank of India at its Alappuzha Branch. On 7/10/2019 there were a balance of Rs.2,09791.30. Ps/- in the said account. On that day complainant issued cheque No.000025 for Rs. 2,00,000/- infavour of his father Philip Abraham(PW1). However the cheque was dishonoured with endorsement ‘contact drawer/drawee bank’. The grievance of the complainant is that though there was sufficient balance to honour the cheque it was dishonoured by the bank which is deficiency in service from their part. Complainant has got further allegation that he lost reputation and sustained mental agony due to the dishnonour of the cheque though there was sufficient balance. Hence he filed the complaint for realizing an amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest an exemplary damage. Opposite party filed a version admitting that there was sufficient balance in the account on 7/10/2019 to honour the cheque. However 7/10/2019 was a holiday in Kerala on account of Mahanavami. As per the RBI guidelines cheques for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and above are considered as high value cheque. Before clearing high value cheque it is the duty of the bank to contact the customer and get consent regarding the issuance of cheque. It is for the benefit of the account holders. Hence according to them there was no deficiency of service on their part and so the complaint is only to be dismissed. Complainant’s father who is also the drawee of the cheque was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. During his cross examination Ext.B1 to B6 were marked. The Branch Manager of opposite party bank was examined as RW1 and Ext.B7 and B8 were marked.
10. The fact that a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- was presented on 7/10/2019 in the account of the complainant and it was dishonoured with an endorsement contact drawer/drawee bank is not in dispute. The contention of complainant is that the cheque was dishonoured, though there was sufficient balance in the account to honour the cheque and it amounts to deficiency of service. At the first instance it may appear that there was negligence from the part of the bank which amounts to deficiency of service. The bank has produced their circular as well as the circulars of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to substantiate their contentions. Admittedly the value of the cheque is Rs. 2,00,000/- and it is considered as a high value cheque. Ext.B2 is a circular dated. 30/10/2018 of the Bank of India (OP Bank). 3.4 is Preventive Measures. 3.4.i reads as follows:-
Parent Branches Officials should contact to the customers/ account holder over registered mobile/ telephone numbers after uploading of cheques in clearing under CTS(details shared by Service Branch through email) and having value of Rs.2.00 lakh and above to establish the genuineness of such issued cheques. At Non CTS centres, genuineness of such cheques should be established over mobile/telephone, if the value of such cheques are Rs.0.50lakh and above.
11. Ext.B3 is a circular dated 23/8/2013 of the Reserve Bank of India.
5 reads as follows:-
Under CTS, inward clearing is generally processed in a centralized manner by banks at the CTS location. However, in exceptional cases, where the reference to base branch is required and the base branch is closed on account of local holiday, the drawee bank at the grid location may return the instrument to the presenting bank under return reason code 88 as enumerated in annexure D of Uniform Regulations and Rules for Bankers’ Clearing Houses with the description “ need reference to the drawee branch which is closed on account of local holidays/issues”.
12. Ext.B4 is a circular dated 5/11/2014 of Reserve Bank of India which reads as follows:-
“ In addition to the above, banks may consider the following preventive measures for dealing with suspicious or large value cheques ( in relation to an account’s normal level of operations):
a) Alerting the customer by a phone call and getting the confirmation from the payer/ drawer.
b) Contacting base branch in case of non-home cheques.
The above may be resorted to selectively if not found feasible to be implemented systematically.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party bank pointed out that opposite party had only acted in accordance with the circulars issued by the Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India and there was no deficiency of service or negligence from their part. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointed out that 7/10/2019 was a holiday in Kerala as wells in Tamil Nadu on account of “Mahanavami”. He produced Ext.A3 bank holidays in October 2019 in TamilNadu from which it is revealed that 7/10/2019 was a holiday in Tamilnadu on account of “Mahanavami”. Opposite party has also produced Ext.B5 Calender of Malayala Manorama to show that 7/10/2019 was a holiday in Kerala on account of “Mahanavami”. So since 7/10/2019 was a holiday in Kerala as well as in Tamilnadu there was no occasion to return the cheque it was contended. As per the circulars of the RBI Holidays to the CTS southern grid is decided by the National Payment Corporation of India. Ext.B7(a) shows that though 7/10/2019 was a holiday in Tamilnadu for the branches there was no holiday for Uniform CTS/ RTGS. From Ext.B8 also it can be seen that 7/10/2019 was not a holiday for CTS(Southern Grid at Chennai). So from Ext.B7 and B8 it is pellucid that though 7/10/2019 was a common holiday in Kerala and Tamilnadu for the branches on account of “Mahanavami” it was not a holiday for the Cheque Truncation System. (Southern Grid) through which cheques are cleared. From Ext.B3 circular of RBI it is seen that if the branch is closed on account of local holiday the cheque has to be returned with a reason need reference to the drawee branch which is closed on account of local holiday /issues.
14. Admittedly 7/10/2019 was a holiday in Kerala and Tamilnadu. However it was not holiday for the CTS (Southern Grid) and so the cheque was sent for collection. However since it was a holiday in Alleppey the opposite party could not contact the drawer (Complainant) and so the cheque was returned as per the regulations in the Ext.B3 circular. So it is crystal clear that there was no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party bank and the cheque happened to be dishonoured on account of the circulars of Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India. Complainant has got a further case that an amount of Rs.118/- was debited in his account as collection charges. Ext.A2 is the copy of statement of account of complainant from 6/6/2019 to 26/10/2019. The cheque is seen returned on 7/10/2019. An amount of Rs. 118/- is seen deducted on 16/10/2019. From Ext.A2 it is noticed that the cheque was presented again on 10/10/2019 and it was honoured. To substantiate that Rs.118/- was not deducted by the opposite party bank they produced Ext.B7 from which it is revealed that it was credited in the account of M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. So the said amount was not deducted by the opposite party bank and they cannot be blamed for the same. It is further alleged that M/s IDBI through which PW1 had sent the cheque for collection had deducted an amount of Rs.295/- as bank charges. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, Bank of India cannot be blamed for the bank charge deducted by IDBI and IDBI is not a party in the proceedings. From the above discussion it can be summarized that though 7/10/2019 was a holiday on account of “Mahanavami” in Kerala and Tamilnadu there was no holiday for the CTS Southern Grid through which the cheque was sent for collection. Cheques having value of Rs.2,00,000/- and above are considered as high value cheques. As per the Bank of India and RBI circulars high value cheques can be honoured only after getting confirmation from the drawer of the cheque. These circulars are for the benefit of the account holders /customers to avoid cheques reaching into the hands of miscreants/strangers. We do agree that dishonor of cheque causes pain and mental agony to the drawer of the cheque. However it is to be noted that these circulars are implemented for the benefit of the account holders so that the high value cheques are not reaching in the hands of strangers and it is only for the benefit of account holders. It is also to be noted that the cheuqe was again presented on 10/10/2019 and it was honoured and the opposite party bank has not collected any amount as bank charges. In said circumstances we are of the opinion that opposite party bank is justified in returning the cheque and the circulars are issued for the benefit of the account holders/ customers. In said circumstances no deficiency of service can be attributed to the opposite party bank and so complainant is not entitled for any compensation. These points are found accordingly
15. Point no.3:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 16th day of October, 2021.
Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Philip Abraham(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Pass book (IDBI)
Ext.A2 - Copy of Pass book (Bank of India)
Ext.A3 - Calender
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Ajith. K.A(opposite party)
Ext.B1 - Copy of Lawyers Notice dtd.17/3/2020
Ext.B2 - Circular dtd.30/10/2018(Bank of India)
Ext.B3 - Circular dtd. 23/8/2013 (RBI)
Ext.B4 - Circular dtd. 5/11/2014(RBI)
Ext.B5 - Malayala Manorama Calender
Ext.B6 - Statement of Account(Bank Of India,Aleppey)
Ext.B7 - CTS Southern Gird Holiday List for the year 2019
Ext.B8 - CTS Uniform Holidays for Calendar 2019 Southern Grid.
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
