Date of Filing 25.09.2023

                                                                                                                                         Date of Disposal: 27.12.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                         …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com.,ICWA (Inter), BL.,                                                          ……MEMBER-II

CC.No.100/2023

THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 27^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

Mr.Rathinavelpandian,

S/o.Thanigesan,

Residing at 4/13, Ma-Po-Si Nagar,

Thiru-Vi-Ka Street, Thiruvallur 602 001.                                             ......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

1.The Branch Manager,

   Union Bank of India,

   Plot No.3573, Ground Floor,

   TNHB-V.75,Kakkalur By Pass Road,

   Thiruvallur 602 001.

2.The Head Post Officer (Chief post Master General),

    Thiruvallur Head Post Office,

    Thiruvallur 602 001.                                                                        ….opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                  : Mr.R.Hariramkrishnan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                         :  Mr.D.Sathish Kumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                        : M/s.L.Ravichandran, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 18.12.2023 in the presence of Mr.R.Hariramkrishnan, counsel for the complainant and Mr.D.Sathish Kumar, counsel for the 1^st opposite party and M/s.L.Ravichandran, counsel for the 2^nd opposite party  and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service with respect to the delayed intimation and returning of the deposited cheque by the opposite parties along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the cheque amount and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Being aggrieved by the delayed intimation and returning of the deposited cheque by the opposite party the present complaint has been filed.

3. The complainant having an account with the 1^st opposite party vide Account No.63540201008745 had deposited a cheque No.258778 dated 12.07.2023 for an amount of Rs.1, 00,000/- for collection with the 1^st opposite party.  Even after several days as he did not get any intimation about the deposited cheque with respect to clearance the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to know the status but no proper reply was given.  After a lapse of 26 days though pass book entry was made on 08.06.2023, the transaction only till 15.07.2023 was updated and there was no mention about the deposited cheque.  When questioned the 1^st opposite party staff, the complainant was questioned whether the cheque was put in the drop box, whether he came to the opposite party branch office etc.  When the challan was furnished for the deposited cheque it was found by the 1^st opposite party that the deposited cheque was missing.  On 10.08.2023 the Bank staff called the complainant and handed over the deposited cheque without any memo or letter stating reasons for return of the cheque.  It was informed that the cheque was not a valid one as it does not have CTS 2010 clearing futures and so it was not presented for clearing.  The 2^nd opposite party had committed deficiency in service in providing an in valid cheque book to the client enabling them to practice mal practice.  Thus alleging deficiency in service the present complaint was filed against both the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the cheque amount, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 1^st opposite party:-

4. Denying that the complainant was treated in fooling or teasing manner the 1^st opposite party denied all the other allegations. It was submitted that on 17.07.2023 the complainant dropped cheque No.258778 in cheque drop Box and as per the Bank practice on that particular period of time, same would be sent to the service branch for clearing.  After clearing, 23 cheques returned from the service branch on 21.07.2023 except the disputed cheque and on perusal it was informed that the cheque does not possess CTS-2010 clearing features.  Thus in the present case as the cheque was not a valid one it could not be honoured and hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 2^nd opposite party:-

5. On the part of the 2^nd opposite party it was admitted that one Mr.Kannan was having savings Account with them but it was made dormant as it was not operative for a long period.  Thus the cheque becomes a stale cheque which could not be honoured.  Thus stating that there was no cause of action for the complaint against them for filing the present complaint, the 2^nd opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

6. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A9 were submitted. On the side of 1^st opposite party 1 & 2 proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were submitted.  On the side of 2^nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B5 was submitted.

Points for consideration:-

1.   Whether the delay caused by the 1^st opposite party in intimating and returning the deposited cheque to the complainant stating that the cheque No.258778 is a stale cheque without CTS-2010 clearing features amounts to deficiency in service on their part?

2. If so, what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of their contentions;

1. Deposited cheque No.258778 dated 12.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Challan of the 1^st opposite party dated 17.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Bank Statement of the complainant dated 08.08.2023 was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Message sent to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party dated 11.08.2023 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Message sent to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party dated 18.08.2023 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Legal notice by the complainant dated 11.08.2023 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Postal letter given by the 1^st opposite party dated 14.08.2023 was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Reply to the legal notice by the 1^st opposite party dated 18.08.2023 was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Photo of receiving the cheque by the complainant was marked as Ex.A9;

 The following documents were filed on the side of 1^st opposite party in support of their defence;

1) Postal letter sent to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party dated 14.08.2023 was marked as Ex.B1;

2) Message sent to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party dated 18.08.2023 was marked as Ex.B2;

3) Acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.B3;

4) Photo of receiving the cheque by the complainant was marked as Ex.B4;

The following document was filed on the side of 2^nd opposite party in support of their defence;

1. Copy of transaction Inquiry was marked as Ex.B5;

7. Heard oral arguments of complainant and both the opposite parties.

8. The main grievances of the complainant is that as the 1^st opposite party misplaced the deposited cheque and replied only after issuance of legal notice he alleges deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and that the 2^nd opposite party in not collecting back the invalid cheque after the Account of the drawer i.e. Mr.Kannan’s Account became dormant. 

9. The 1^st opposite party argued that only due to non availability of clearing service in that particular branch at the time the delay has occurred and as the cheque was not a valid cheque it could not be honoured.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

10. On the part 2^nd opposite party, it  was argued that there was no cause of action for the complaintant against the 2^nd opposite party and that the cheque issued by one Mr.kannan Saving Account with the 2^nd opposite party became dormant in 2013 itself and hence they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

11. It is seen that the cheque dated 12.07.2023 was deposited with the 1^st opposite party for clearance on 17.07.2023 which aspect was not disputed by either of the opposite parties.  The main allegation of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party had committed huge delay in processing the cheque for which the 1^st opposite party raised the defence that as that particular branch did not had the clearing service at that particular time and it has to go to main branch for clearance.  However no document was filed by the 1^st opposite party in proof of the same.  But the complainant had filed document Ex.A2, the challan issued by the 1^st opposite party for depositing the cheque on 17.07.2023 in proof of depositing the cheque with the 1^st opposite party.  Further Ex.A3 dated 08.08.2023 was also filed wherein the transaction up to 15.07.2023 only was updated and there was no reference to the cheque deposited on 17.07.2023.  As per the Ex.A4 the complainant was called upon to collect the cheque.  It is seen that Ex.A4 was dated 11.08.2023 and that the same was intimated to the complainant after completion of 24 days.  No explanation was provided by the 1^st opposite party that they earlier called upon the complainant to collect the cheque.  The 1^st opposite party did not establish that they immediately on receipt of the deposited cheque on 17.07.2023 sent the cheque for clearance and the same was returned without clearance from the service branch due to it being a stale cheque.  No communication by the service branch to the 1^st opposite party about the status of the cheque sent for clearance was submitted by the 1^st opposite party.  Thus the absence of any evidence make this Commission to presume that the 1^st opposite party had committed delay in processing the deposited cheque.  The delay might have occurred due to missing of the cheque as alleged by the complainant.  If the 1^st opposite party immediately responded by returning the deposited cheque on the very next day after collecting the cheque from the drop box, the complainant might have contacted the drawer of the cheque Mr.Kannan for further action.  However due to the delay caused by the 1^st opposite party in intimating that the cheque was a stale cheque as it does not possess the CTS-2010 clearing features, the complainant was left with no remedy against the drawer of the cheque.  In such facts and circumstances this commission could safely conclude that the 1^st opposite party had committed clear deficiency in service with respect to clearing of the cheque deposited by the complainant.

12. As rightly pointed out by the 2^nd opposite party they have no role to play in the matter of deposited cheque or clearance.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed against them. It is not expected that the 2^nd opposite party will go behind its customer in collecting the stale cheque after their account becomes dormant.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the 1^st opposite party.

Point No.2:-

13. With regard to the relief to be granted as we have held above that the 1^st opposite party had committed deficiency in service for the mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant, we order a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant as compensation.  As complainant would have proceeded against the drawer for realization of the cheque amount, this Commission is not inclined to award the cheque amount to the complaint.  We award Rs.5,000/-towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed against the 2^nd opposite party and partly allowed against the 1^st opposite party directing them

a) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship and monetary loss caused to the complainant;

 b) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 27^th day of December 2023.

    Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

MEMBER-II                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

List of documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

    Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-

  MEMBER-II                                                                                                      PRESIDENT