Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

24/2014

T.Gowri Sankaran,S/o.Thirunavukarasu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Manager,Indian Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.Subadra

08 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

                                                           Complaint presented on:  28.01.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on: 08.07.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 08^th   DAY OF JULY 2016

 

C.C.NO.24/2014

 

 

T.Gowrisankaran,

S/o/Thirunavukarasu,

No.35, (New No.50) Thirupalli Street,

Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079.

                                                                                     ..... Complainant

 

..Vs.

	The Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Walltax Road Branch, Elephant Gate, Chennai – 600 079
	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  13.02.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : S.Subadra

Counsel for   opposite party                    : M/s.A.Sermaraj

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is a senior citizen, operating a Savings Bank Account No.12688 with the opposite party. He issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.9,597/- to the LIC towards payment premium in respect of his family member’s policy. The LIC presented the said cheque with his banker, Axis Bank. The said cheque was returned for the reason of ‘insufficient funds’. The LIC advised the Complainant to send fresh remittance of Rs.9,772/- inclusive of bank charges of Rs.175/- towards cheque return charges. Then the Complainant paid the premium amount of Rs.9,835/-  inclusive of bank charges  of Rs.175/- and late fee of Rs.63/-. The Complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.500/- which was spent by the Complainant, due to the negligent act of the service branch of the opposite party. Though sufficient amount of Rs.1,19,526.86/- was available in the account of the Complainant, the opposite party returned the cheque establishes his deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint claiming compensation for mental agony with cost of the compliant.

 

 

 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IS IN BRIEF:

          The  Opposite Party submits that the cheque bearing No: 588576 dated 14.06.2012 issued by the Complainant for a sum of Rs.9,597/- has not come to the Opposite Party branch for clearing, instead all the cheques will be  sent for clearing to the cheque Truncations System (CTS), a  centralized unit formulated by the RBI for speedy clearing  of cheques. The said cheque was returned by the CTS office stating the reason of “Funds Insufficient”. Immediately after the return of cheque came to the knowledge of this Opposite Party, the officials of the Opposite Party called the Complainant and tendered their apology for the mistake committed by the CTS office and assured to render best service to the Complainant in future. But the Complainant was in mood only for resorting litigation in order to extract money from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant did not sustain any loss, mental agony, hardship etc., as alleged by him in the Complaint. The Opposite Party once again tried to convince the Complainant on receipt of his letter dated 26.07.2012 by calling him to the branch. But the Complainant was so adamant and firm in foisting case against the Complainant. Hence the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If it is so, to what

              extent?

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. POINT NO :1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant is operating Ex.A3, Saving Bank Account No.12,668 with the opposite party and he issued Ex.A2 cheque for  a sum of Rs.9,599/- to the LIC towards payment of premium and the said cheque was returned due to ‘insufficient funds’ under Ex.A4 memo and the dishonor of cheque was intimated to the Complainant, by the LIC under Ex.A5 letter and the Complainant paid the premium of amount to the LIC in cash under Ex.A6 receipts with a late fee of Rs.63.60/-.

          5. The contention raised by the opposite party is that, the cheque was returned by the CTS (Cheques Truncations System) office for the reason of ‘insufficient funds’ and immediately after the return of cheque, the official of the opposite party called the Complainant and tendered apology and also convinced him after receipt of letter dated 26.07.2012 from him, however  the Complainant was so adamant only for resorting litigation and further the Complainant did not sustain any loss or suffered  mental agony and therefore the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          6.  The Complainant issued Ex.A2 cheque to pay premium to the LIC from the account maintained by the opposite party. Admittedly on the date of clearing of Ex.A2, sufficient funds were available in the complainant’s account. According to the Opposite Party the CTS only returned the cheque and not by him and therefore he is not liable. The act of the CTS clearing of the cheque also binds the opposite party, for the reason that the CTS doing transaction only in the account maintained by the opposite party and also on his behalf. Therefore, we hold that the cheque returned by the CTS, as it done by the opposite party.

          7. Merely tendering apology by the opposite party officials will not cure the defect. The cheque was returned while the sufficient sum was available in the Complainant account is a serious defect. Further, the Complainant wrote Ex.A8 letter dated 26.07.2012 to the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.500/- (towards cheque return charges a sum of Rs.175/-, late fee of Rs.63.60, conveyance charges of Rs.240/- and Rs.21.40/- towards claim charges and thus a total sum of Rs.500/-) which was incurred by him due to dishonor of Ex.A2 cheque by the opposite party. The details given by the Complainant is reasonable for the claim of Rs.500/-. However the opposite party would contend that even after such letter we convinced the Complainant and however he is only in the mood resorting to litigation. Such explanation of the opposite party is not acceptable. If really the Complainant had an intention to resort to litigation certainly he could have revealed his intention in the letter itself. However, he did not do so. Further the Complainant also sustained a loss of Rs.175/- towards cheque return charges and the same was detailed by the Complainant in his Ex.A8 letter with other charges. After such demand made by the Complainant in Ex.A8 to pay a sum of Rs.500/-, if the opposite party could have paid the amount, the Complainant would not have resorted in filing this Complaint. Therefore, we hold that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by returning Ex.A2 cheque inspite of sufficient funds available in his account.  

8. POINT NO :2

          Since the opposite party committed deficiency in service, the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted. Further, the Complainant also incurred a loss of Rs.500/- due to return of the cheque. Therefore, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expense.

           In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony to the Complainant  besides  a sum of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five  thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 08^th   day of July  2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.06.2012                   Copy of Premium receipts No.433641 to 433645

                                                for five policies issued by the LIC City Branch – 1

 

Ex.A2 dated 14.06.2012                   Copy of cheque No.588576 issued by the

                                               Complainant for the payment of premium

 

Ex.A3 dated 14.06.2012                   Copy of SB A/C Statement for

                                               A/C No.12668 which was having   

                                               sufficient amount in his account.

 

Ex.A4 dated 16.06.2012                   Memo sent by Axis Bank Ltd Service Branch

                                               Chennai – 2 to LIC City Branch – 1

 

Ex.A5 dated 19.06.2012                   Copy of intimation letter sent by LIC for

                                               dishonoured cheque

 

Ex.A6 dated 26.06.2012                   Copy of premium receipts No. 438139 to 438143

                                                issued by LIC City Branch – 1 for five policies

                                                which were paid by cash

 

 

Ex.A7 dated 26.07.2012                   Copy of courier receipt issued by professional

                                               Courier

 

Ex.A8 dated 26.07.2012                   Copy  of the letter sent by the Complainant to the

                                               Senior Manager, IOB walltax Branch Ch-79, to

                                               settle the amount paid by him.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

                                          …..NIL…..     

         

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT