Date of Filing:29/07/2021 Date of Order:17/03/2022 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:17th DAY OF MARCH 2022 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SRI. Y.S. THAMMANNA, B.Sc, LL.B., MEMBER SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M, B.A, LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.337/2021 COMPLAINANT : | | SMT. K. LALITHA W/o Puttamadaiah, Aged about 39 years R/at. Door No.5, ‘B’ Block, Bengaluru Diary Colony, M H Marigowda road, Dr college Post, Bengaluru 560 029. Ph: 9611234405 (Sri Santhosh Kumar MB Adv. for Complainant) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTY: | | CANARA BANK (Formerly Syndicate Bank) T.V. Plaza, 376/21, Siddaiah Road, Wilson Garden Branch Bengaluru 560 027. Represented by its Manager. (Sri Prashant.T.Pandit Adv for OP) | |
|
ORDER
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS. PRESIDENT
1. This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in not sending the cheque presented to the drawee bank for encashment inspite of request and for paying Rs.1,11,000/- being the amount debited from her account after credit along with interest at 18% per annum from 24.08.2020 and Rs.25,000/- as damages and Rs.15,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is the SB account holder with OP Bank having SB Account No. 04192210001480. She deposited a cheque bearing No.000041 dated 08.07.2020 drawn on HDFC Bank, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.1,11,000/- on 21.08.2020. The same was presented for encashment with OP. The said cheque was returned unpaid with a memo dated 24.08.2020 with the reason “Present with Document”. A sum of Rs.1,11,000/- was credited to her account initially, afterwards the same was debited from her account on the same day and the cheques was returned with a memo. As per the RBI guidelines and regulation, when the receiving bank request the presenting bank to “Present with Document” the presenting bank has to present the physical cheque by next clearing session without referring to the drawer but in this case, the cheque was returned with the shara as received by the drawee bank. Hence complainant has to issue legal notice as to represent the said cheque.
3. The same was served on the bank. Even after service of the notice OP has not replied the same. Without presenting the physical cheque within next 24 hours, OP has caused loss to the complainant by debiting the amount of Rs.1,11,000/- from her account OP have acted negligently in respect of the presentation of the cheque and the payment of the amount. Hence there is deficiency in service and prayed the commission to allow the complaint.
4. Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the commission and filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, it is filed on false and frivolous grounds. There is no deficiency on its part. The complainant having a SB Account presented the said cheque on dated 08.07.2020 and the same was presented for clearing on 24.08.2020. The drawee bank i.e. HDFC Bank returned the cheque with a reason “Present with Document”. The same was intimated to the complainant who took back the cheque on 25.08.2020 from them. In the instant case, the figure and the words in respect of the amount appearing on the cheques are different. The intention is best known to the complainant herself.
5. The RBI circular relied on by the complainant is in respect of the delay in representation of technical return cheques and levy of charges on such returns. In the instant case, there i s no delay in return of the cheque. She herself took back the cheque on 25.08.2020 and the same was handed over to her personally at her request. Denying all the other allegations made in each and every para of the complaint, prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.
6. In order to prove the case, both the parties have filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 & 2 : In the Negative
For the following.
REASONS
POINT No.1 & 2:-
8. On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by the respective parties, it becomes clear that, the complainant is having a SB Account with OP and presented the cheque ExP1 which was asked to be “Present with the document” as per ExP2. It is also not in dispute, that as per ExP3 that the amount mentioned in the cheque was earlier credited to the account of the complainant and later when the cheque was not honoured and the drawee bank requested the presenting bank to “produce the document” the amount was reverted and the complainant has received the cheque by putting the signature in Ex.P1. When such being the case, no deficiency has been made out on the part of OP. Further on perusing the cheque, in words, it has been written as One Lakh eleven thousand only. Whereas in the space provide for writing the amount in figures, it is written as Rs.111%000/-. Probably by noting the above discrepancies the drawee bank might have called the presenting bank to present with the document to ascertain the real facts. When such being the case, even the documents are presented by OP bank, it would have been rejected due to the discrepancies as pointed out above in the cheque. Since the cheque has been taken back by the complainant who presented the cheque, we are of the opinion that no deficiency on the part of OP is made out and further the complainant would have represented the cheque again or else would have obtain a another cheque from the drawer of the said cheque. Further the complainant has not been put to any loss as otherwise also this cheque would have been rejected for payment on the ground of said discrepancies. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 AND 2 IN THE NEGATIVE. Hence complainant is not entitle for any of the relief claimed in the complaint. Hence we pass the following:
.
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 17th day of MARCH 2022)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Smt K Lalitha – Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of the cheque returned.
Ex P2: Copy of the endorsement.
Ex. P3: Copy of the Account statement.
Ex P4: Copy of the Legal Notice.
Ex P5: Postal acknowledgement.
Ex P6: Copy of the RBI resolution.
Ex P7: Reason for return of cheque.
Ex P8: Coy of another RBI resolution.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: Sri Shekhar Behera Sr.Branch Manager of OP.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RAK*
