Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

783/2009

J.Jagadeesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Hong Kong & Shangai Banking Corp.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RATIO LEGIS

12 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 17.07.2009

Date of Reservation      : 23.08.2022

Date of Order               : 12.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.783/2009

MONDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Shri J. Jagadeesan,

PRS Section, 10^th Floor,

MMC Complex,

Southern Railway,

Chennai - 600 003.                                                           ... Complainant              

 

..Vs..

The Manager,

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd,

Mylapore Branch,

Chennai 4.                                                                     ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant        : M/s. S. Kala

Counsel for the Opposite Party     : M/s. BC & Associates

 

On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Complainant the written arguments being treats as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.10,10,000/- with interest as admissible upon the date of payment.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant is holding 'My Terms Credit - PLOC A/c No. 041-54111-001 and according to the terms and conditions forwarded vide letter dated 11.07.2006 the client was permitted to avail an overdraft facility for an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- over a period of Twelve months. The overdraft facility was sanctioned subject to the condition that the overdraft facility should be in the nature of continuing credit facility valid, at the sole discretion of the bank, for a period of 12 months commencing from thereof and might be renewed on annual basis on such terms and conditions, as the bank might decide, at its sole discretion. Further to that effect a Demand Promissory Note for an amount of Rs. 210000/- was sought to be executed.

Under these circumstances he has issued a MICR cheque bearing No. 080327 dated 19.01.2009 for a value of Rs. 1,95,000/- transferable at the Mylapore Branch, in favour of Smt. Rajam. He received a lawyer's notice issued under instructions from Smt. Rajam stating that the cheque bearing No. 080327 dated 19.01.2009 for a value of Rs. 1,95,000/- was returned stating that fund in complainant's account was insufficient. As such a demand was made by the said Smt. Rajam to pay a recompense towards the dishonoured cheque as well to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the lawyer's notice why should not the complainant be prosecuted in the germane legal forum. The act of opposite party in dishonouring the cheque issued by the complainant, the complainant hailing from a respected family and garner high reputation, suffered degeneration in his integrity. In so far as enjoyment of one's reputation includes all the moral and material advantages to which it may entitle him in his relationship with the society as a whole, any imputation that infringes or tends to infringe this right would be termed as defamatory. Further one's reputation may be well established that nothing said or done on the part any person could harm it, but still that person would be liable not because he had harmed the plaintiff's reputation but for his depraved intention and his tendency to cause harm. The act of the opposite party was without justification or lawful excuse. It was a calculated act to injure the reputation of the complainant and further the same tend to lower the complainant in the estimation of right thinking people generally or tend to make them to shun or avoid the complainant. The opposite party beleaguered and disgraced the complainant, a railway employee involved in the duties connected with safety oriented running of trains. Further the entire developments created an appalling impression in the midst of the complainant's social group and created an impression in the establishment that the complainant was a recurrent debtor, and thus the complainant was put into adversity thus causing immense mental agony and indeed the complainant has undergone cosmic mental agony. On account of the opposite party failing to discharge its efficient service, the complainant is liable to derive due compensation from the opposite party. Hence the Complaint.

 

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

         The complainant availed credit facilities under the scheme My Terms Credit PLOC A/c No 041-541111-001 for a sum of Rs.2,10,000 from the opposite party on 11.07.2006. As per the loan terms the complainant is entitled to enjoy overdraft facility of Rs.2,10,000 for 12 months which shall be renewed at the sole discretion of the bank. The complainant executed necessary loan documents like Demand Promissory note, Agreement for Overdraft/cash credit on 11.07.2006 for availing the loan. The complainant is put to strict proof that the credit facility was valid, extended and available as on the date of the alleged transaction or alleged cause of action. The credit facility as claimed by the complainant was not available on the date of the alleged cause of action. On 28.01.2009 it had sent a letter to the complainant that the current outstanding on this facility is Rs.12,124.46 only and requested the complainant not to utilize any amount over this revised sanctioned limit. While so the cheque for Rs.1,95,000 was presented to the bank for collection only on 17.02.2009 on which date of presentation the complainant did not enjoy the full facility and had credit limit of only Rs.12,124.46. The complainant was well informed of the said credit limit. Hence the account did not have sufficient funds to honour the cheque in question. The complainant ought to have arranged his own sources of funds to honour the cheque or should have instructed his payee not to present the cheque as he did not have sufficient funds. The complainant ought to have arranged his own sources of funds to honour the cheque or should have instructed his payee not to present the cheque as he did not have sufficient funds. The Complainant ought to have verified his statement with the bank before issuing the cheque. The opposite party cannot be held responsible for the return of the cheque as it had not committed any negligence or deficiency in service. The complainant is put to strict proof of the basis for the alleged transaction between the complainant and Smt.Rajam and the claims. The notice dated 19.05.2009 addressed to the opposite party, received on 10.06.2009 is defective and bereft of vital particulars like correct PLOC account number. Hence the opposite party through the Manager-Customer Service, Authorised Signatory, Centralised Retail Assets Processing Unit, sent a reply dated 19.06.2009 to the complainant stating that since every customer having a relationship with the Bank, can only be identified through a unique account number, as opened in name of the customer, that the PLOC account number provided in the notice is incorrect, that the opposite party would only be able to ascertain the facts and respond to the allegations as raised in the notice, through the unique account opened in the name of the customer, and requested the complainant to provide the correct PLOC Account number, so that the opposite party can look into the matter & respond accordingly. The complainant failed to respond to the said letter. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8  were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Written Version and Proof Affidavit of Opposite Party was closed and no documents was marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

                It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had availed overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- and the same was sanctioned on 11.07.2006 by the Opposite Party.

        The disputed fact was that based on the above said overdraft facility the Complainant had issued a cheque  dated 19.01.2009 for Rs.1,95,000/- to one Mrs.Rajam and the same was returned by the Opposite Party as funds insufficient.

        From the perusal of the Exhibits marked in support of the complaint as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that by Ex.A-1 the Complainant was sanctioned with overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- by the Opposite Party Bank. From Ex.A-3 it is clearly mentioned in the letter sent on 28.01.2009 by the Opposite Party Bank to the Complainant that the available overdraft limit was Rs.12,124.46/- to the Complainant as revised. The cheque dated 19.01.2009 for Rs.1,95,000/-  issued to one Mrs.Rajam, as per Ex.A-2 was found to be presented on 17.02.2009 after issuance of Ex.A-3 and the same was returned as funds insufficient. Even from Ex.A-5, the legal notice dated 24.04.2009 sent by one Rajam to the Complainant, the said cheque was found to be advised for presentation. Hence we hold that the Complainant knowing full well about the Credit limit revised by the Opposite Party on 28.01.2009, had made to present the cheque on 17.02.2009, which was more than the available credit limit, will not amounts to negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

As discussed and decided point No.1 as against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the Complaint and/or for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is Dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 12^th of September 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	11.07.2006	Copy of Facility acceptance advice
Ex.A2	-	Copy of the Returned Cheque
Ex.A3	28.01.2009	Copy of HSBC letter
Ex.A4	20.02.2009	Copy of HSBC A/C Statement
Ex.A5	24.04.2009	Copy of Legal notice on the Complainant
Ex.A6	19.05.2009	Copy of Legal notice on the Bank
Ex.A7	16.02.2009	Copy of Postal cover
Ex.A8	19.01.2009	Copy of returned Cheque

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT