Date of Filling : 07.09.2012
Date of Disposal : 08.12.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc., … MEMBER-I
CC.19/2012
Tuesday, the 8th day of December 2015
K.Manohar
S/o N.C.Kandaswamy
No.16/9, SIDCO Estate Road,
Thirumazhisai, Chennai - 600 124. …Complainant
/Vs/
The Manager,
Indian Bank,
Thirumazhisai Branch,
Thiruvallur District. …Opposite Party
….
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 01.12.2015 in the Presence of Thiru.M.Kandaswamy Advocate on the side of the complainant and Thiru.K.V.Srinivasan, Advocate for the opposite party and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This Complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking direction that the opposite party has to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation for deficient in service by Bank Manager and the deposit May month pension of cheque amount Rs.10,986/- with interest from 06.06.2012 of deposit and thereby render justice.
The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:
1. The complainant is a senior citizen and retired Executive Officer. The complainant is an acute diabetic patient with amputation done on his right leg and he is currently under medical treatment, whose sole medical expenses are depended upon his monthly pension amount. Every month he obtains his pension by way of cheque in favour complainant from the Executive Officer, Kundrathur town Panchayat, Kancheepuram District. The complainant has his savings account No.450264211 with the opposite party’s Bank, Thirumazhisai Branch, Chennai – 600 124. On 04.06.2012 the complainant had received the May month pension Rs.10,986/- by way of Indian Overseas Bank cheque. After receiving the cheque, the complainant had deposited the same in his own savings account No.450264211 in Indian Bank, Thirumazhisai Branch on 06.06.2012.
2. The complainant had deposited the above said cheque and got endorsement from Indian Bank officials on 06.06.2012. When the complainant had checked his bank account on 20.06.2012, he was shocked to see that the cheque was not cleared. When he enquired about the deposited cheque to the manager by way of a written complaint dated 27.06.2012 and got acknowledged. After two days when the complainant went to bank and enquired about the deposited cheque the opposite party rude very rude, using abusive words and informed the complainant to get out from his premises.
3. So, the complainant had preferred a complaint against the Indian Bank,
Thirumazhisai branch official to B7 Vellavedu police station. But due to delay in investigation by the Police Officials, the complainant with no other remedy had filed a direction petition before the Hon’ble High Court. It had been registered as Crl.Op.20204/2012 which is still pending.
4. The complainant stated that it is pertinent that all the efforts taken by the complainant to recover the above said deposited cheque amount, legitimately due to him from the opposite party but it becomes futile. It resulted in causing complainant’s undue hardship and distress. In spite of issue of legal notice dated 21.08.2012 and the same was received by the opposite party, but the opposite party had failed to do his duty by sending evasive reply and thereby caused mental agony and strain. Hence this complaint.
The contention of the written version of the opposite party has brief as follows:
5. The complainant is not maintainable in law and on facts. The allegations mentioned in the complaint are not true and are denied. It is true that the complainant is having his SB Account with the opposite party. But the allegations that the complainant himself deposited his May month pension of Rs.10,986/- by way of Indian Overseas Bank Cheque with the opposite party on 06.06.2012 is denied.
6. Whenever the cheque was deposited with the Bank, the Banker will verify the cheque in all aspects and verify whether the chellan was duly filled up by the customer, and thereafter the counter foil will be returned to the customer by signing the counter foil along with the seal as a practice. Every day, the opposite party will note down the number of cheques received by them and sort them out and for sending for collection to the service branch, at Chennai. The complainant approached the opposite party on 23.06.2012 and enquired about the noncredit of cheque amount deposited by him. Immediately the opposite party verified the complainant’s account, as well as, the ledgers about the cheques sent for collection to the service branch. On verification from the records, it was found, that no cheque was deposited by the complainant, on the alleged date well as up to the date of his enquiry, i.e.23.06.2012.
7.As the complainant was a recently retired executive officer from Kunrathur Town Panchayat and the in order to avoid fraudulent encashment, a lettere was addressed to the Executive Office, Kunrathur Town Panchayat Office, to mark “Stop Payment” of cheque with Indian Overseas Bank, Kunrathur Branch and also requested it to issue a duplicate cheque and the letter was sent to the Executive Office, Kunrathur through the special messenger, in the presence of the complainant.
8. The complainant again visited the opposite part on 27.06.2012 along with letter, to credit the cheque amount. The complainant was requested to approach his Kunrathur Town Panchayat Office, to obtain a duplicate cheque. But the complainant refused to go to the Town Panchayat Office, as he was already retired as Executive Officer from that office. On 26.07.2012, the opposite party lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Vellevedu, about the missing of the cheque and to issue FIR and missing report, at an early point of time, to enable the complainant to get the duplicate cheque. Again on 28.08.2012, a letter was sent to the Inspector of Police, Vellavedu, with a request to expedite the matter and the same was informed to the complainant by way of letter dated 30.08.2012, but the complainant refused to co-operate. The opposite party approached the police and at last, got the certificate on 05.09.2012 regard to cheque missed.
9. In order to help the complainant, a special messenger was also sent to the Kundrathur Panchayat to obtain a duplicate cheque. The duplicate cheque was obtained on 06.09.2012 vide cheque no.537745 and the said amount was credited, towards the complainant’s account on 07.09.2012 and for the delayed collection period, interest of Rs.171/- was also given credit to on 08.09.2012. The same was duly informed to the complainant on 08.09.2012 itself. Meanwhile, the complainant has preferred a complaint before the High Court, Chennai, vide Crl Op.No.20204/2015 and the opposite party appeared before the Hon’ble High Court and explained the above facts and thereby the complaint was closed on 22.11.2012.
10.There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party. He never failed to do his duty, he never dragged the complainant several time, the opposite party dines the medical complaint of the complainant. He never used any abusive words against the complainant as it never arose.
11. Due to the sincere efforts taken by the opposite party, the missing certificate was obtained on 05.09.2012. So, there is no negative response or delay to effect the payment. The opposite party is in no way responsible for the complainant’s distress or mental agony and stress.
12. The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation for deficiency in service and as the complainant had already received the May month pension amount of Rs.10,976/- on 07.09.2012 with interest of Rs.171/- on 08.09.2012. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. On the side of the complainant, proof affidavit submitted for his
evidence Exhibit A1 to A3 are marked. While so, on the side of the opposite party proof affidavit filed for his evidence. No documents filed on the side of the opposite party.
14. At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant entitled to?
15. Written argument filed by the opposite party. whereas not filed on the
side of the complainant.
16. Point 1: As per the case of the complainant is that the opposite party has
failed to encase the cheque No.533341 of IOB, dated 04.06.2012 issued by the Executive Officer, Kundrathur Town Panchat to the complainant towards his May month pension amount, which is only for his livelihood and after repeated representations, the opposite party has not complied and thereby there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and caused mental agony to the complainant.
17. While so, the opposite party contended, that the allegation of the complainant himself deposited his May month pension amount of Rs.10,986/- by way of Indian Overseas Bank cheque with the opposite party on 04.06.2012 is not correct and if fact after effective steps taken only by the opposite party to obtained duplicate cheque for the same and credit the said amount along with interest of Rs.171/- for the delayed collection period and the same was informed to the complainant on 08.09.2012 and therefore the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation for deficiency in service.
18. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is learnt, that the complainant has deposited Indian Overseas Bank cheque No.533341, dated 04.06.2012 in his SB Account No.450264211 in the opposite party’s bank on 04.06.2012 and thereafter, when the complainant checked his saving bank account on 20.06.2012, he was shocked to see that the cheque was not cleared and hence he approached the opposite party and informed the fact of non-credit of the cheque amount, by way of written complaint, but it ended in vain. It is further learnt that the complainant had given a complaint to the B7 Vellavedu police station on 11.07.2012, but the concerned police station could not come forward to register the case immediately and therefore the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court for getting direction in Crl.Op.No.20204/2012 and then only the FIR in cr.No.514/2012, is registered which is marked as Exhibit A2, as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court Madras, in Crl. Op.no.2024/2012 is marked as Exhibit A3. The reply letter from the Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Thirumazhisai Branch dated 30.08.2012 is marked as Exhibit A1. It is further deposed by the complainant in the proof affidavit, that in spite of legal notice dated 21.08.2012 had issued, the opposite party has not come forward to comply the demand of the complainant, he has preferred this complaint before this Forum.
19. While so, on careful perusal of the evidence of the opposite party, it is crystal clear that all the facts narrated in the complaint are admitted except the contention that the allegation in the complaint, he has deposited that the Indian Overseas Bank cheque for his May month pension of Rs.1086/- with the opposite party’s bank on 06.06.2012 is not correct and the same is denied. Further, it is stated that, though the complainant has not co-operated with the opposite party to obtain the duplicate cheque from the Executive Officer, Kundrathur Towan Panchayat, Kancheepuram District. The opposite party has only taken all coercive steps and obtained the duplicate cheque dated 06.09.2012 vide cheque no.537745 and the said amount was credited to the complainant’s account on 07.09.2012 along with the interest of Rs.171/- for the delayed collection period and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
20. At the outset, on careful perusal of the evidence adduced on both sides and Exhibit A1 and A3 and also relevant documents filed along with the complaint, it is crystal clear that, except deposit of cheque by the complainant on 04.06.2012, all other facts admitted. At this juncture, it goes without saying that the duty cast upon the complaint to prove as to whether the cheque of Indian Overseas Bank towards the pension of May 2012 on 06.06.2012 with the opposite party’s Bank.
21. At this point of time, it is seen from the evidence of the complainant, the
counter foil dated 06.06.2012 filed along with the depositing of Indian Overseas Bank cheque bearing no.533341, dated 04.06.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,986/- in his Savings Bank Account bearing no.450264211 on 06.06.2012 which is affixed with Indian Bank seal is very clear and the same is not disputed by the opposite party. Further, it is learnt from the written complaint dated 27.06.2012 to the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Thirumazhisai branch for non-credit of the cheque amount and same is acknowledged by the concerned Branch Manager on the date itself. Furthermore, in spite of the above said complaint, the opposite party has not come forward to credit the said cheque amount, the complainant has preferred the complaint to the B7 Vellavedu police station on 11.07.2012 is also very clear and to that effect, the receipt also has been issued by the concerned police station.
22. Moreover, on seeing through the Exhibit A1, the reply of Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Thirumazhisai Branch for the legal notice dated 21.08.2012, it is very clear, that there is not even mentioning about the non deposit of the cheque of Indian Overseas Bank bearing the cheque no.533341 dated 04.6.2012. Whereas the written version of the opposite party, it is stated that it is not correct to say that the complainant had deposited the above said cheque on 06.06.2012, which is fully contrary to Exhibit A1. Therefore, the plea taken by the opposite party is only after thought and is thereby it is completely rejected. From the above documents as well as evidence, it is crystal clear that the deposit of Indian Overseas Bank Cheque bearing no.533341 for sum of Rs.10,986/- in the Savings Bank Account in the Indian Bank, Thirumazhisai Branch on 06.06.2012 has been proved without any doubt.
23. At this instance, this Forum has to consider whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, since the opposite party has contended that there is no deficiency in service. It is an admitted fact that the cheque amount was only credited in the complainant’s savings bank account on 07.09.2012 on obtaining the Duplicate Cheque from the Concerned Authority after delay of 3 months. At the outset, though some reasons sated by the opposite party, it is well established that the cheque deposited by the complainant on 06.06.2012 has not been properly entered in the relevant bank register and credited the cheque in the complainant’s account, as per the procedure as contemplated under banking law, which is purely negligence on the part of the opposite party.
24. In furtherance, it is seen that the opposite party has stated in the written version as well as proof affidavit that they have only taken necessary steps to obtain the duplicate cheque, is not a valid reason for delayed payment of the pension amount and of the complainant, since the fault was on the part of the opposite party for not making necessary entry in the Bank register and missed the said cheque and also it is the matter of the livelihood of the complainant, who is a senior citizen and he is purely depended upon the said pension amount has to be kept in mind. At this instance, for argument sake, if it is taken as, that it is true that the opposite party has taken some efforts in obtaining the duplicate cheque, as already found that the missing of cheque is only on the part of the opposite party, it certainly amounts to the deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the complainant, which cannot be easily thrown out. It is pertinent to note that the payment of interest of Rs.171/- is no way to compensate the hardship caused by the opposite party to the complainant.
24. In the light of the above facts, circumstances and observations made above, this Forum is of considered view that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by means of relevant and consistent evidence. Thus the point no.1 is answered accordingly.
25. Point 2: In view of the findings arrived in the point no.1, the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation towards deficiency in service and causing mental agony to the complainant with cost. Regarding the cheque amount of Rs.10,986/-, as already discussed and pointed out by the opposite party, that the said amount already credited in the Savings Bank account of the complainant on 07.09.2012 with interest of Rs.171/- under the procedure of the Banking law and therefore the relief sought for the same in the complaint is not entitled.
In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand only) towards cost. Regarding the other reliefs prayed in the complaint is hereby dismissed.
The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9.5% P.A. till the date of payment.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized
by him, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 8th December 2015.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1/Dt.30.08.2012: Xerox copy of the reply sent by the opposite party to the
Complainant.
Ex.A2/Dt.22.11.2012: Xerox copy of Hon’ble High Court Order.
Ex.A3/Dt.08.11.2012: Xerox copy of the FIR register by the Vellavedu Police Station.
List of documents of the opposite party: Nil.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
