Complaint filed on 25.02.2009<br /> Complaint Disposed on 24.06.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> Dated: 24th of JUNE 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:-SRI. S.S.NAGARALE<br /> SMT. M.YASHODHAMMA<br /> SRI. A.MUN IYAPPA. <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.272/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. H.S. Ananthakrishna,<br /> #3311, 4-Cross, <br /> Gayatri Nagar, <br /> Bangalore-21.<br /> <br /> Presently R/at Residing at<br /> #224/A, 12-Main, <br /> Swimming Pool Road,<br /> Saraswathipuram, <br /> Mysore-009.<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Branch Manager, <br /> State Bank of India, <br /> Malleswaram Branch, <br /> Bangalore – 03.<br /> <br /> 2. The Branch Manager, <br /> The Mysore Co-operative Bank Ltd., <br /> Gandhi Square,<br /> Mysore-01. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OP) to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> -2-<br /> The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant presented a cheque dated 12.11.2008 at the SBI Malleswaram Branch, Bangalore on 21.11.2008 drawn on Mysore Co-operative Bank Ltd., for Rs.6,00,000/-. The said cheque came to be dishonored and returned to the complainant on 17.12.2008. On 30.12.2008 complainant sent an e-mail to OP on 09.01.2009 complainant gave an application to OP-1 and 2 under RTI seeking information regarding inward number, outward number, with date and time of the returned cheque, mode of posting used to sent the dishonor cheque. But OPs failed to give information within the specific time. Complainant used to visit the OP-1 bank every day to enquire about the cheque since 30.11.2008. OP-1 officials said they were not in receipt of the said cheque. Complainant was in dire need of money. On 12.12.2008 OP-1 officials informed the complainant that a cheque has been returned and same is dispatched through courier. Inspite of information that complainant is not available at Bangalore address, cheque has been dispatched to the same address at Bangalore. Hence due to the delay in processing the cheque complainant lost his image and good will in his profession. OPs have not fallowed the RBI regulations. Under the circumstances he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint against the OP for the necessary relief. <br /> <br /> 2. On service of notice OP-1 & 2 appeared & filed their versions mainly contending that on 21.11.2008 complainant presented the cheque dated 12.11.2008 for Rs.6,00,000/- for collection. OP-1 put the same into core banking system. Since 22.11.2008 was Saturday half day working day for OP-1 cheque could not be dispatched to Mysore for collection. On 25.11.2008 said cheque was dispatched to SBI Mysore through courier for <br /> <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> onward collection from OP-2. As 23.11.2008 was Sunday and 24.11.2008 was weekly holiday for the OP-1. On 29.11.2008 SBI Mysore branch received the cehque and sent it to OP-2 for collection on 02.12.2008 by post as OP-2 is not a member of the clearing house. On 30.11.2008 being Sunday and 01.12.2008 was Monday, beginning of the month with full rush of pension and salary payment, hence SBI mysore could not send the cheque. The cheque returned by Mysore Co-operative Bank Ltd., for “insufficient funds” to SBI Mysore on 04.12.2008. Which was received by SBI Mysore on 06.12.2008 and same was received by OP-1 on 11.12.2008. The OP-1 on 12.12.2008 sent the said cheque for the complainant’s address at No.3311, 4th Cross, Gayathrinagar, Bangalore. On 16.12.2008 cheque returned undelivered. On 17.12.2008 same was handed over to complainant. Complainant claims to be residing at Mysore, he choose to present the cheque at Bangalore. Cheque dated 12.11.2008 presented only on 21.11.2008. The 10 days time limit is not applicable for the cheques value is more than Rs.10,000/- complainant failed to furnish the change of address. Among other grounds OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OPs have also filed the affidavits evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved the <br /> deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative.<br /> Point No.2:- As per final order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not in dispute that complainant on 21.11.2008 presented the cheque dated 12.11.2008 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Mysore Co-operative Bank Ltd., with the OP-1 Bank. The said cheque came to be dishonored and returned to the complainant on 17.12.2008. From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that there is some delay on the part of the OP-1 bank. Complainant has spent some time in visiting the OP-1 bank. The contention of the complainant that OP is violated the RBI regulations cannot be accepted as no supporting evidence produced in this regard. If complainant is aggrieved with the answer given to the application filed under RTI. Further remedy is available for the complainant under the same Act. The claim of the complainant for Rs.6,00,000/- compensation has no basis. It is not case of the complainant that due to delay in receipt of payment he incurred loss in his business. There is some delay on the part of the OP-1 in processing of the cheque which is dishonored. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. <br /> <br /> The OPs being service providers shall respect its customers and also should see that its customers / consumers are served in a better way without giving scope for negligence or deficiency in service. The Consumer Protection Act is enacted to protect and safeguard the better interest of the consumers. Consumer is the king. This is an age of computer. The OP-1 should not have taken so much time in processing the said cheque. <br /> -5-<br /> Complainant has given number of visits to the bank. Thereby spending lot of time and energy. Delay in doing so must have naturally caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore complainant can be compensated by ordering OP-1 to pay Rs.2,000/- compensation and Rs.500/- towards litigations cost with these reasons we answer point No.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP-1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.<br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of June 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> :snm:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />