S. Ganesan,

Rajarajeswari Apartments,

5, Fifth Street,

Ram Nagar,

Nanganallur – 600 061. …. Complainant

Vs

The Chief Post Master,

Anna Road H.P.O.,

Chennai – 600 002. …. Opposite Party



Date of complaint : 17.01.2006

For Complainant : Mrs. G. Nalini, Counsel.

For Opposite Party : Shri.S. Karthikeyan,A.C.G.S.C.

Counsel.

ORDER

THIRU.P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT


The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party compensation of a sum of Rs.20,000/- including a sum of Rs.150/- for deficiency in service and cost of the complaint.

1. The briefly stated the facts of the case of the complainant are as follows:

The complainant is the joint holder of the savings bank account No.4825092 in the Post Office Savings Bank at Anna Road, Head Post Office, and Chennai-2. He issued a cheque in favour of M/s. Insight Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd., drawn on the opposite party dated 11.02.2004 for a sum of Rs.13,755.26p. The opposite party had returned the cheque by a return memo dated 13.02.2004 though he had sufficient funds in his account on the ground that twenty five paise not written in words. The apposite party should have honoured the cheque as per the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the Act, when there is discrepancy in writing the amount in swords and figures the amount written in words ought to be taken into account. Since the cheque was dishonored the brokers did not allow the complainant to purchase the shares. The complainant paid Rs.100/- to the brokers as penalty and Rs.50/- as cheque return charges. He sent a letter to the opposite party but the opposite party justified his action. The dishonour of the cheque when sufficient funds are available amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation and costs.

2. The opposite party filed written version and contended inter alia that the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.13,755.25 p in favour of M/s. Insight Share Brokers dated 11.02.2004. The depositor had mentioned the amount of the chdque as Rupees Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Five in words and had omitted to mention “ twenty five paise” while writing the amount of the cheque in words. According to the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I, the amount entered in the cheque in words should tally with the amount entered into figures. The cheque was returned for the above reason and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite party. Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibits B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties?.

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No.1: The complainant is a Savings Bank Account holder of the opposite party Post office. He issued a cheque in favour of M/s Insight Share Brokers (P) Ltd., dated 11.02.2004 for a sum of Rs.13,755.25 paise. The opposite party returned the cheque by return memo dated 13.02.2004 on the ground that “ twenty five paise “ was not written in words. Ex A1 is the xerox copy of the return cheque. Ex A2 is the copy of return memo. He sent a letter to the opposite party dated 26.03.2005 calling for the reasons for dishonouring of the chdeque. The opposite party has replied that the chdeque was returned because there is difference in the amount written in words and figures. Ex A5 is the reply of the opposite party. The complainant would submit that as per the Negotiable Instruments Act, the opposite party should have honored the chdeque for Rs.13,755/- He was forced to pay Rs.100/- as penalty for the brokers and a sum of Rs.50/- was deducted for cheueq return charges. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and he is entitled to the compensation.

6. Per contra, the opposite party would submit that as per Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume – I, the amount entered in the cheque in words should tally with the amount entered in figures. Since in Ex A1, the amount mentioned in words did not tally with the amount mentioned in figures. Hence, the cheque was returned. Ex B1 is the copy of the application form. Ex B2 is the copy of Rule 5 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rule, 1981. Hence, there is no question f any deficiency in service.

7. We have carefully considered rival submission and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the complainant had issued a cheque in favour of M/s Insight Share Brokers dated 11.02.2004. The cheque was received by the opposite party for clearance on 13.02.2004. Since the cheque amount mentioned in words and figures differed, it was returned to the complainant. The Post Office Savings Bank General Rules 1981 stipulates the procedure to honur the cheques. Rule 4 (iii) of the Manual reads as follows: “ the amount as entered in the cheque in words tallies with the amount as entered in figures.” As rightly contended by the opposite party that the cheque issued by the complainant was returned as the complainant did not follow the procedure as laid down in Rules 4 (iii) of the Post Office Savings Bank Rules, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The contention of the complainant that the opposite party should have honoured the cheque as per Negotiable Instruments Act is unacceptable. The opposite party cannot honour the cheque when the amount in words and figures differed. The point is answered accordingly.

8. Point No.2: In the result, the compliant deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed No costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of December 2009.