Sri.K. GOPALAN: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs 90,000/- as damage to the complainant and cost of Rs 2000/-.<br /> The case of the complainant in nutshell are as follows. The complainant deposited a cheque dated 22.11.2006 for Rs 12,000/- drawn in complainant’s name by Mr. Yashpal Levin at Kolkatha branch of the HSBC Bank. The credit balance then was Rs 568/-. After 2 days the complainant had issued 2 self cheques one forRs 2.000/-( No.0679813) and the other for Rs 3000/-( 1679814)/ Cheques were presented on 1.12.2006 and 13.12.2006 respectively along with complainant’s pass book. Complainant presented the first cheque number of times and the second cheque was also presented . But the cheques were again dishonoured. The complainant had issued another cheque bearing no.0679815 for Rs 1000/-dated 16.12.2006 to one Mr. Rajan, therefore,,dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. The bank clerk returned the self cheque and pass book on every occasion stating that the cheque for Rs 12,000/- deposited by the complainant was not cleared and the cheque were encashed only on 21.12.2006. There is a delay of one month in clearing the cheque. There was sufficient balance in his account to clear all the above 3 cheques to the complainant. Hence this complaint for compensation for causing mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party had held RS 12000/- for one month without paying the cheque amount . This is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.<br /> The complainant had presented the cheque having no. 0679813 three times on 1.12.2006, 13.12.2006 and 16.12.2006. The complainant, 78 years of age,had to undergo the indignity of being turned away,without payment. This was caused mental anxious and humiliation to the complainant. In this day and age, where the entire world opens up at a switch of a button , the opposite party bank is by their deficient service and lack of consumer awareness , trying to exploit a consumer. The RBI insists that out station cheque should be collected and credited in 7 days while the opposite party took more than one month to do so. Complainant prays for a direction to pay an amount of Rs 90,000/- as compensation and Rs 2000/- as cost.<br /> The opposite party filed version contending as follows. It is true that the complainant is holding an SB account with the opposite party. Although complainant having his SB account with the opposite party it has not been maintained satisfactorily keeping the minimum balance. The minimum balance to be maintained in SB account with cheque book facility is Rs 1000/- and on failure to do so the opposite party is entitled to recover service charge from the complainant, The allegation of the complainant that after 10 days of deposit of the cheque believing that the cheque would be encashed the complainant had issued 2 cheques and the said cheques were dishonoured is false. It is true that the complainant had entrusted a cheque dated 22.11.2006 for Rs 12000/- drawn on HSBC Bank, Kolkatha, payble at Kolkatha with this opposite party for collection. The cheque was an outstation cheque to be collected from Kolkatha , this opposite party had sent the said cheque for collection following normal banking practice. The opposite party is not responsible for any delay for collecting out station cheque as the collecting process involved service of different collecting agencies. This opposite party has not given any undertaking that the cheque entrusted by the complainant would be collected within 7 days. Only after receiving actual proceeds of the cheque the amount is credited in the account of the customer. The opposite party received proceeds of the cheque in question only on 19.12.2006 from HSBC Kolkatha and the same credited to the complainant’s account on 20.12.2006. Presentation of the cheque on 1.12.2006 and 13.12.2006 is denied by the opposite party. On the date presenting the cheque there was only Rs 568.05 in the complainant’s account. The complainant is not expected to present the cheque without sufficient balance in his account. The complainant issued cheque without having sufficient balance in the account amounts to breach of contract. The complainant’s averment that he has sufficient amount in his account to clear all 3 cheques is false. There was only Rs 568.05 in the account during the period between 1.12.2006 to 20.12.2006 The amount of Rs 89 collected from the complainant is normal collection charge for out station cheque. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party and it is false to say that the complainant flouted the direction of RBI. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious. The complainant is not entitled for any relief.<br /> On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deificency on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Relief and cost.<br /> The evidence consist of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite party.<br /> ISSUE Nos. 1 to 3:<br /> Admittedly complainant deposited a cheque on 22.11.2006 for Rs 12000/-drawn in complainant’s name at Kolkatha branch of the HSBC Bank.. The clear balance amount showsn in Ext. A1 on 22.11.2006 is Rs 568.05. On 1.12.2006 there is a separate entry showing thus: “ 01/12/06 uncleared amount : 12000.00 cr ; clear balance :568 .05 cr.” The next entry starts only on 20.12.2006 That means upto 19.12.2006 the clear balance in the account remains is only Rs 568.05 cr. The cheque amount seen credited in the complainant’s account after deducting Rs 89 as collection charge on 20.12.2006 Complainant is having less amount than required minimum balance in his account. The complainant issued all the 3 cheques before the proceeds of the HSBC cheque was collected and credited in his account. The complainant deposited an out station cheque For collecting it has to be sent to KOlkatha as normal procedure. The opposite party stated in their version that opposite party is not responsible for the delay in collecting out staion cheque as the collecting process involved service of different collecting agencies. It is also stated that the opposite party has not given undertaking to collect the amount within 7 days. The complainant has not given evidence to prove that the opposite party has liability to collect the amount within 7 days. There is also no evidence to find who is responsible for the delay in collecting the amount of the out station cheque. The complainant has not taken steps to adduce evidence on that aspect. Complainant alleged that opposite party has hold on to the complainant of Rs 12000/- for one month without paying of the cheque amount. The amount seen collected and credited on the account of complainant only on 20.12.2006 It is true that the deposit date was 22.11.2006. There is reason for delay and hold the money during the days of delay is not proved by the complainant. The complainant has no case that the amount of the out station cheque had been collected by the opposite party bank before 20.12.2006. The date of collection of the cheque was not challengd by the complainant. In cross examination when the question “ you know when the cheque is entrusted to bank it has to go to KOlkatha bank then only it can be collected “ asked to the complainant , his answer was “ that was the system”. If it is so the Bank in KOlkatha should sent the amount to opposite party for crediting it in the account of complainant. In the cross examination the complainant admitted that “ it is the system”. If ther is any delay caused for collection the opposite party bank cannot be blamed since it is fully depend on the performance of Kolkatha bank. It may due to various reasons. So also bank cannot be blamed in deducting collection charges since that is the charge bank entitled to get since the complainant had not maintained minimum required balance in his account. In cross examination answer to the question” did you go to bank with this self cheque to encash “ the answer of the complainant was “I am not remembering “. Hence complainant’s averment that every time the complainant who is 78 years of age to travel to opposite party bank, stand in the queue etc cannot be considered as correct.<br /> In the light of the above discussion it can be seen that the amount of cheque deposited with the bank on 22.11.2006 collected and credited only on 20.12.2006. The complainant entitled to issue cheque only if there are sufficient amount remains as balance in the account. Hence we are of opinion that the dishonour of cheque by the opposite party bank before 20.12.2006 cannot be considered as deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief <br /> In the result,the complaint stands dismissed. NO order as to costs.<br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Counterfoil of cheques<br /> A2. Savings Bank Pass Bookof SBI of the complainant<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party<br /> B1. Attested photo copy of bearer cheque No.0679813 dt. 1.12.2006 forRs 2000/- of the complainant drawn on O.P.<br /> B2. Attested photocopy of bearer cheque no.0679814 dated 13.12.2006 for Rs 3000/- of thecomplainant drawn on OP.<br /> B3. Statement ofaccount of the complainant.<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party- NIL<br /> Forwarded/by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />