Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite party.

                   2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant is an account holder of opposite parties bank at 2^nd opposite party’s branch at Parakode – Adoor vide Account No. 00000098555705783.  On 09/07/2015 the complainant presented a cheque for an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- dated:16/04/2015 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Pathanamthitta, which was issued in favour of the complainant.  It is contended that the opposite party kept the cheque in their bank for a long time and lack of due diligence and care for sending the cheque for collection it received drawers bank (IOB) on 16/07/2015 after its validity period.  The drawer’s bank dishonoured the cheque by stating the reason “instrument out dated stale”.  It is contended that the cheque dated: 16/04/2015 presented for encashment at opposite party’s bank 09/07/2015 it reach only on 16/07/2015 at drawers bank.  The reason for the dishonour of cheque as stale is due to the latches and negligence on the part of the opposite party.  It is a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite party bank and they are liable to the complainant.  It is contended that since the cheque was dishonoured the drawer of the cheque did not pay the amount covered under the said instrument to the complainant till date.  It is further contended that the opposite party bank did not take any action for sending the cheque for encashment to drawer’s bank within seven days so that the cheque happened to become ‘stale’.  According to the complainant if the cheque presented in time before the drawers bank and it is dishoured the complainant can very well file a criminal complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the drawer of the cheque.  Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as damage and compensation, cost, etc, etc.

3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for appearance.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version as follows. According to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is admitted that the cheque bearing dated: 16/04/2015 drawn from IOB bank, Pathanamthitta branch was presented to opposite party on 09/07/2015, as alleged by the complainant.  It is stated that since it was an outstation cheque for Rs. 9,00,000/- belonging to an another bank (IOB) it was sent to Service Branch, Thiruvananthapuram on 11/07/2015.  The said cheque was received on 13/07/2015 at Thiruvananthapuram and on 15/07/2015 the Service Branch presented the cheque for collection to IOB Bank.  The IOB dishonoured the said cheque on 16/07/2016 with a reason “instrument out dated stale”.  In order to substantiate the opposite parties contention the cheque collection procedure and permissible time limit are also mentioned in this case.

4.  On the basis of the above cheque collection procedure 14^th days of time can be taken for cheque collection with other banks.  It is further contended that the opposite parties bank sent the cheque within the time limit and the opposite parties contended that they have shown reasonable caution and procedure in this matter.  The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and not liable for any loss alleged or for any relief.   Therefore the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them.

5.  We peruse the complaint version and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

               6.  In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Through PW1 Ext. A1 & A8 were also marked.  Ext. A1 is the Power of Attorney issued by the complainant.  Ext. A2 is the copy of the cheque dated:16/04/2015 in favour of the complainant. Ext. A3 is the receipt issued by 2^nd opposite party in favour of the complainant dated: 09/07/2015.  Ext. A4 is the Return Memo Report dated: 16/07/2015.  Ext. A5 is the remittance memo dated: 22/07/2015.  Ext. A6 is the legal notice dated: 07/08/2015.  Ext. A7 is the postal receipt.  Ext. A8 is the copy of civil suite for re-covering Ext. A2 cheque amount from the above said Sandeep.P.Job before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta as OS No.61/15.   On the other side 2^nd opposite party is examined as DW1 and marked Ext.B1 & B2. Ext. B1 series are the circular issued by RBI of 01/07/2010 as ‘master circular on customer service in banks’.  Ext. B2 series are the cheque collection policy 2015 which was issued by the SBT.  After the closure of evidence we heard both sides. Apart from hearing both the parties filed argument notes in their favour.

                   7. Point No.1:- The opposite parties seriously contended that the case is not maintainable either in law on fact.  According to them they did not commit any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and opposite parties strictly followed the cheque collection policy of 2015 of SBT. When we look into the evidence adduced by both parties we can infer that the complainant herein is an account holder of 2^nd opposite party’s bank and on the strength of an account holder of the bank he presented the cheque for an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- bearing dated: 16/04/2015 to 2^nd opposite party bank for collection.  If so we can come to a clear conclusion that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and opposite parties are service providers of the complainant.  Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant. 

                   Point No.2 &3 :-  For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  The case of the complainant is that as the account holder of the opposite party’s bank he presented the cheque dated: 16/04/2015 for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party’s bank on 09/07/2015.  The presentation of the cheque in opposite party’s bank is admitted by opposite party in this case.  In order to substantiate this contention the complainant produced and marked Ext. A2 the copy of the cheque dated:16/04/2015 in favour of the original complainant Annie Rajan.  Ext. A1 is none other than the Power of Attorney Holder executed by the complainant in favour of PW1 for conducting this case.  Ext. A3 dated: 09/07/2015 is the receipt issued by 2^nd opposite party in favour of the complainant which shows that the said bank received the cheque from the complainant for sending collection to drawers bank 09/07/2015.  Ext. A4 dated: 16/07/2015 shows that the opposite parties bank return Ext. A2 cheque (original) to the complainant along with a memo stating the reason of dishonoured as “instrument out dated stale”.  On the basis of the Ext. A4 it is clear that the Ext. A2 cheque was honoured by the drawer’s bank by reason that the said cheque was ‘stale’ at the time of presenting before drawer’s bank.  Ext. A5 dated: 22/07/2015 is a copy of the returned cheque remittance memo issued by 2^nd opposite party in favour of the complainant.  Ext. A6 dated: 07/08/2015 is an advocate notice issued to the drawer of the Ext. A2 cheque one Mr.Sudeep P Job by the complaint seeking to pay the amount covered under said cheque Rs.9,00,000/- if fails informed civil and criminal action against him.  Ext. A7 is the postal receipt of the Ext. A6.  Ext. A8 is the copy of civil suite for re-covering Ext. A2 cheque amount from the above said Sandeep.P.Job before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta as OS No.61/15.  On the other side when 2^nd opposite party is examined as DW1 apart from his proof affidavit he produced and marked Ext. B1 & B2.  Ext. B1 is a circular issued by RBI of 01/07/2010 as ‘master circular on customer service in banks’.  In page 39 of the said document 14.1.3 (iii) says “Timeframe for collection of cheques drawn on State Capitals/major cities/other locations to be 07/10/2014 days respectively.  If there is any delay in collection beyond this period, interest at the rate specified in the CCP of the bank, shall be paid.  In case the rate is not specified in the CCP, the applicable rate shall be the interest rate on Fixed Deposits for the corresponding maturity.  The timeframe for collection specified by the Commission shall be treated as outer limit and credit shall be afforded if the process gets completed earlier”.   On the basis of the above circular we can see that 7 to 14 days can be taken by the bank for the collection purpose of cheques.  The time limit of 7 to 14 days are shown in the circular as the date which can be taken by the bank for the collection purpose and the said dates are exceeded the bank is liable to pay the interest for the said amount at the rate specified in the CCP of the bank or if it is not mentioned the said bank shall pay fixed deposit interest to such transactions.  Ext. B2 is a cheque collection policy 2015 which was issued by the SBT.  In Ext. B2 clause 2(6) also explained also describe time frame for collection of cheque it says “Timeframe for collection of cheques:- Cheques drawn on branches of other banks located at State Capitals/Major “A” class Cities/other locations will be collected within 07/10/2014 days respectively.  If there is any delay in collection beyond this period, interest at the rate specified hitherto in the CCP shall be paid without insisting/waiting for a request from the customer.  Time-limit for collection specified by the Bank shall be treated as the outer limit and credit shall be afforded immediately, if the proceeds get collected earlier.  Also, branches of the Bank shall not decline to accept outstation cheques deposited by its customers for collection”.   On the basis of the above description we can see that a bank can take 7 – 14 days for collection of a cheque.  On the basis of the above discussion the main issue to be considered as whether the opposite parties committed any latches or delay for the collection of Ext. A2 cheque.  When the case is heard by this Forum the complainant produced the cheque collection policy of SBI which was notified on 2015.  When we look into the preamble of the said notification we can understood that the said cheque collection policy was duly approved by bank central board and it is known as bank cheque collection policy 2015.   The said document is marked by this Forum as Ext. X1 for convenience to arrive a conclusion in this matter.  As per clause I(11) it says “Cheques deposited at branch counters and Cheques deposited in the drop-box within the branch premises, before the specified cut-off time, will be sent for clearance on same day, for which the clearance period will be T+1 working day.  Cheques deposited after this cut off time will be sent for clearing on next day, for which clearance period will be T+2 working days”.  As per clause I(11) it is so clear to see that it is mandatory to sent a cheque on the same day of its acceptance and even after presenting the collection cheque even after the cut off time it should have sent on the next day itself.  In clause I(14) it says “Bank branches situated at centers where no clearing house exists, would present local cheques on drawee banks across  the counter and proceeds thereof would be credited would be credited, at the earliest, on realization”.   On the basis of the description in clause I (14) if the bank branches are situated at centers where there is no clearing houses it is to be presented directly to the drawee bank at the earliest.  It is true that the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that SBT bank is amalgamated with SBI bank only on 01/04/2017 and before that time SBT has a separate entity.  Though the counsel argued on this way, when we look into Ext. B2 series, it is to see that SBT is an associate of the SBI prior to its amalgamation.  Moreover as an associate bank of SBI the SBT who have governed by the rules and notification issued by SBI even prior to its amalgamation.  On the basis of the above instructions referred above it is to be understood that though the complainant presented the cheque for collection on 09/07/2015 only on 11/07/2015 the said cheque was presented for collection through collection bank.  It is also to be noted that though the cheque received at the collection branch of SBI, Thiruvananthapuram on 13/02/2015 the said service branch presented the cheque for collection only on 15/07/2015.  On the basis of the above explanation we can see a 4 clear days delay happened on the side of 2^nd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party’s collection branch for the presentation of cheque before the IOB.  Moreover as per circular in Ext.X1 clause I(14) the opposite party can directly presented the cheque as a local cheque because it is admitted that there is no clearing house existing at Pathanamthitta district for opposite parties bank.  It is come out in evidence to show that the complainant presented the cheque at Paracode – Adoor of SBT branch and the draweer’s bank IOB is situated at Pathanamthitta.  Therefore the Ext. A2 cheque can be treated as a local cheque since no clearing house is existing at Pathanamthitta.  Though opposite party’s learned counsel argued that the complainant purposefully delayed the presentation of Ext. B2 cheque within the time limit and only in the last stage of its validity the complainant presented the cheque at 2^nd opposite party branch, we don’t think that there is any merit on that submission because the complainant is at liberty to present the Ext. A2 cheque within the time limit of 3 months of its date of draw.  As per the Ext. A2 cheque the date of draw of the cheque is 16/04/2015 it would become stale only on 16/07/2015.  It is admitted that the cheque presented before 2^nd opposite party bank on 09/07/2015.  If the 2^nd opposite party and the collection bank of Thiruvananthapuram applied reasonable mind and prudence this cheque can be presented before the drawer’s bank within the time limit.  Anyway considering the nature and circumstances of this case it is to be noted that whether the drawer of Ext. A1 cheque has got sufficient deposit in his account at IOB branch Pathanamthitta on date of presentation of cheque i.e., 16/07/2015.  It is true that either the complainant or the opposite parties adduced any evidence to show that what was the fund position of the drawer of Ext. A2 at the time of its presentation on 16/07/2015.  If the said drawer has sufficient deposit in IOB at the time of its presentation the said dishonour caused much hardship and difficulty to the complainant.  Further as discussed earlier there is a latches of clear 4 days happened for the presentation of Ext. A2 cheque in drawer’s bank.  If the cheque presented within the stipulated time Ext. A2 would have not been become as a stale cheque.  Though the complainant demanded an ex-orbitant amount as compensation from opposite parties, considering the nature and evidence of this case, the opposite parties are deserved leniency in this aspect.  It is to be bear in mind that the SBI or SBT banks are public undertaking concern and these banks are known as government bank.  A citizen of this country expecting more faith and service from this kind of public undertaking institutions so that the general public expecting more efficiency, punctuality, responsibility etc. etc, from the officials of this public undertaking institutions.  Therefore we would like to treat this case and its order as a messenger to this kind of institutions. It is evident to see that 2^nd opposite party is the branch of 1^st opposite party so 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are jointly and severely liable to the complainant.  Therefore we would like to find that the complaint is allowable and Point No.2 & 3 are also found accordingly.

                   10. In the result we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite parties are here by directed to pay a compensation of                        Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of the order onwards.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of the order onwards.

               Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of May, 2018.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                  P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)    :       (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : George Easow

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Power of Attorney issued by the complainant. 

A2 : Copy of the cheque dated:16/04/2015 in favour of the complainant.

A3 : Receipt issued by 2^nd opposite party in favour of the complainant dated:

       09/07/2015. 

A4 : Return Memo Report dated: 16/07/2015.

A5 : Remittance memo dated: 22/07/2015.

A6 : The legal notice dated: 07/08/2015.

A7 : The postal receipt.

A8 :  Copy of civil suite for re-covering Ext. A2 cheque amount from the above

         said Sandeep.P.Job before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta as OS No.61/15.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 : K. Jayalekshmi

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

B1 series : The circular issued by RBI of 01/07/2010 as ‘master circular on

                  customer service in banks’.

B2 series : The cheque collection policy 2015 which was issued by the SBT.

Court Exhibit:

 X1:  State Bank of India Cheque Collection Policy

                                                                                               (By Order)

Copy to:- (1)  Annie Rajan,

       Puliyannal House, Puthumala Muri,

                     Puthumala P.O, Ezhamkulam Village, Adoor.

               (2)  General Manager,

                     State Bank of Travancore, Head Office, Poojappura,

                     Thiruvananthapuram.

(3)  The Branch Manager,

                     State Bank of Travancore,

                     Parakode, Adoor.

(4) The Stock File.