Complaint filed on: 16-03-2017 Disposed on: 27-10-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.38/2017
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
C.Satyendra Kumar,
S/o. Late B.Chikkannaiah,
No.9, 10th Cross, 80 feet road,
Mahalakshmi nagar,
Tumakuru-03
(In—person)
V/s
Opposite party:-
The Manager,
Corporation Bank,
Behind Krishna Talkies
Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.Balakrishna Bhat)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.10,873=00 from 7-10-2016 and to pay Rs.3,000=00 and Rs.12,000=00 towards expenses and mental agony to the complainant, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The BDA had allotted site No.402 to the complainant at Banashankari 6th stage, 4th “B” block and the said site was sold to one Sri.Hanumanthappa residing at Girinagar, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.90.00 lakhs. As per the sale agreement dated 16-9-2016, Rs.45.00 lakhs had received from him through cheque No.176322 and the same was deposited by the said cheque to the OP/Corporation Bank, Tumakuru to credit the cheque amount to the account No.00790010107412INR.
The complainant further submitted that, the above said cheque amount transfer to TGMC Bank, Tumakuru main branch, the complainant has given his Corporation bank cheque No.5546711 dated 17-9-2016, that cheque has sent back with a note “Funds Insufficient”.
The complainant further submitted that, when the complainant enquired about the Corporation bank cheque, the OP informed that, the cheque No.0170879 dated 17-9-2016 for Rs.53,000=00 had been transferred/credited to Way-2-Health Broker, Bengaluru, hence the fund is insufficient in the complainant account. Hence, the complainant had been to Way-2-Healthby taking taxi to Bengaluru and enquired in Way-2-Health and they informed that, the cheque is not his, but it was some other person. Again the complainant enquired the OP about the cheque and the OP agreed their mistake and told that, his cheque No.0170879 dated 17-9-2016 for Rs.4,185=00 has been transferred to LIC Premium. Hence, the OP has done the deficiency service. In this regard, the complainant has requested the OP to pay compensation, but the OP did not pay compensation. The complainant further submitted that, the complainant being a senior citizen and also is suffering from ill-health. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint for compensation and mental agony for the deficiency in service.
3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objection, contending interalia as under:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The OP further submitted that, the cheque no.554611 dated 17-9-2016 has been returned for “Insufficient Funds”, but the same has not caused any loss or damages to the complainant in any manner. The said mistake was only a technical error in the computer of the Bank and not intentional. The OP bank has paid the necessary interest to the complainant for the delayed payment.
The OP further submitted that, the OP has not caused any deficiency in service to the complainant. As such, the OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant, since there is no intentional fault on the part of the OP. The compensation claimed by the complainant is highly exorbitant, unjustifiable and arbitrary. Other allegations made in the complaint are denied as false. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
8. In the course of enquiry into the complainant, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Both parties have produced documents. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and then posted the cases for orders.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the affirmative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. As looking into the allegations made in the complaint and also version filed by the OPs, it is an undisputed fact that, the, the complainant has deposited Rs.45.00 lakhs through cheque No.176322 to the OP/Corporation Bank, Tumakuru to credit the cheque amount to the complainant’s account No.00790010107412INR. To transfer the said cheque amount to the TGMC Bank, Tumakuru main branch, the complainant has given his Corporation bank cheque No.5546711 dated 17-9-2016, that cheque has been sent back with a note “Funds Insufficient”. To substantiate the above said fact, the complainant has produced the account statement and CTS return memo along with original cheque. Looking into this document, on 19-9-2016 the complainant had deposited the said cheque in the OP bank and on 20-5-2016 the said cheque has been returned as Fund insufficient. This evidence of complainant remains unchallenged, to discard the evidence of complainant, there is no rebuttal evidence, therefore it is proper to accept the contention of complainant.
8. The main allegation of the complainant is that, the complainant is having sufficient amount in his SB account, but the OP bank has returned his cheque as Fund sufficient. Due to negligent act of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony and unnecessary expenses travelling from Tumakuru to Bengaluru. Hence, the complainant has requested the OP to pay compensation, but the OP did not pay compensation. In this regard, the OP has admitted that the above said fact and the said mistake was only a technical error in the computer of the bank and not intentional. The OP bank has paid the necessary interest to the complainant for the delayed payment. Hence, the OP is not liable to pay any compensation. Ofcourse, the OP had accepted their mistake and credited the delayed payment amount to the complainant’s account on 10-4-2017 for Rs.4,739=00. The OP bank being a financial institution to couple with an obligation to serve the customers. The OP cannot escape from this liability only on the ground that, the mistake has been done by technical error and not intention. The OP cannot get away from the mistake committed. Hence, in our opinion the OP has to be compensate the complainant for the mistake done. The complainant being a senior citizen and he is suffering from ill health and he travelled from Tumakuru to Bengaluru to rectify the problem. Hence, the OP is liable to pay the compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service done by the OP to the complainant. Accordingly, we answer this point in the affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the OP shall pay the said amount to the complainant along with 12% interest per annum from the date of the complaint to till the date of realization.
The OP is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000=00 to the complainant.
This order is to be complied by the OP within 30 days from the date of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Forum on this, the 27th day of October 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
