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 deficiency in service in dishonouring the cheques issued even though sufficient amount was available in his account, and for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages, fine for the above deficiency and for cost and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; the complainant is an account holder of OP bank having SB account No.118901010117869 and has been the customer of OP for more than a decade. He issued two cheques for Rs.348/- on 15.03.2021 and Rs.188/- on 23.03.2021 in favour of one Mr Arun Kumar and in favour of BSNL Bangalore.  The said two cheques, even though sufficient amount was available in his account, were dishonoured and the same was intimated with a return memo with a reason “55–account blocked situation covered in 2125” and a sum of Rs.100/- and Rs.150/- respectively deducted as indemnification charges. When he visited the office of OP and contacted the branch manager, the bank people gave the reason that the dishonor is due to COVID 19 the bank branch was closed and account blocked due to non-compliance of KYC.  He never visited the bank repeatedly and did not make any arguments with the OP and never created any unsavory situation in the OP Bank.  The reason given by the OP and the one mentioned in the return memo are quite contrary.  OP has not at all given a cogent reply for his complaint. He is a senior citizen having respect in a  society.  He made a complaint to the chairman of the OP bank through email and also the same has been replied. The reason mentioned in the memo quoting 21 to 25 is:

“21 Payment stopped by attachment order

22 Payment stopped by Forum order

23 Withdrawal stopped owing to death of account holder

24 Withdrawal stopped owing to lunacy of account holder.

25  Withdrawal stopped owing to insolvency of account holder.”

        Which is not at all applicable to his case while dishonouring the cheques. 

3.     He is from a respectable family well educated and earned a good name in the general public and not involved in any of the case, where as he has utterly insulted in the presence of the public in the bank branch and his credibility has declined.  OP has purposefully with an ulterior motive to defame him and with an intention to insult him derelicted from their duties in dishonouring the cheques for no reasons. Legal notice is also issued in that respect and hence 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 the same is unsustainable and liable to be dismissed.

5.     It has admitted that the complainant is a customer having SB account earlier with Sankey Road branch and later transferred to their branch and has been regularly visiting the branch and disturbing the staff regularly in respect of small issues over the counter. 

6.     It is contended that in the month of March 2021, complainant had issued two cheques as stated by him which were returned to him with an endorsement that the account is blocked. Later the complainant visited the bank branch and the staff of the bank checked in the system and the account blocked was due to non-submission of the KYC.  After submission of the KYC, the account was unfreezed and complainant was advised to represent the cheque. But the complainant, did not do so. Further no dishonor charges has been debited to the account of the complainant. Those cheques were returned with return memo stating the reasons “55-account blocked situation covered in 2125”.

7.     Complainant used to create ruscus in the bank premises and OP has to calm down the complainant in order to explain him to what is wrong with the transaction. The complainant used to visit frequently the bank and used to disturb the transaction. Complainant has not at all registered his mobile with his bank account which is mandatory to receive information regarding the transaction. No mobile number has been registered in respect of his account.  All customers are being informed through SMS through their registered mobile regarding compliance of the KYC.  Complainant was informed regarding freezing of the account and dishonor of the cheque for non-compliance of the KYC. 

8.     It is contended that on the same grounds the complainant approached the banking ombudsman for the same prayer which was rejected by the ombudsman on 2.03.2022.  It is the duty of the complainant/account holder to get the KYC produced and also to abide by the rules prevailing in respect of the account. There is no truth in the allegations made in the complaint and prayed the commission to dismiss the same.

9.     In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their 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?

10.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT No.1 & 2: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

                           For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

11.   On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by both the parties, it becomes clear that, the complainant is a account holder of OP and also issued two cheques for Rs.348/- on 15.03.2021, and Rs.188/- on 23.03.2021 in favour of one Mr Arun Kumar, and in favour of BSNL Bangalore.  The said two cheques even though sufficient amount was available in his account were dishonoured and the same was intimated with a return memo with a reason “55–account blocked situation covered in 2125” and a sum of Rs. 100/- and Rs.150/- respectively deducted as indemnification charges.

12.   It is the contention that though he was having sufficient funds, the cheques were bounced and the return memo it is mentioned that “55–account blocked situation covered in 2125”. The Rule 2125 is clear that, the account blocked situation arises when a)payment stopped by attachment order b) payment stopped by Forum order c) Withdrawal stopped owing to death of the account holder d) withdrawal stopped owning to lunacy of the account holder e) withdrawal stopped owning insolvency of the account holder. But none of the these factor applicable to the complainant in view of the defence taken by the OP that the account was frozen due to non-compliance of the KYC. If at all the contention of  OP that, the complainant has not complied with the KYC, then it should have informed so to the complainant. Whereas, the reason given for dishonouring of the cheques is entirely different than the one stated by OP in the version.  It may be true that complainant has not provided his mobile number or attached to his mobile number to the account. If that being the case he could have been informed by other way of communication requesting him to provide the KYC and would have held the said cheques instead of dishonouring the same.  Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in that respect and we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2:

13.   Complainant has sought Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency on the part of the OP.  No documentary evidence or any kind of evidence is produced by the complainant to show as to how he has suffered damages to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- and how he is entitle for the same. 

14.   The cardinal principle of granting damages is, it should be actual or nearer to the loss which complainant has suffered. In this case though it is stated by the complainant that OP has deducted Rs.100/- and Rs.150/-, from the account of the complainant in respect of dishonor of the cheque, the account statement produced do not depict such a deduction.  Absolutely, complainant has not at all suffered any damage except he is hurt with his ego that though he has having sufficient fund the cheque issued by him was dishounoured which might have also hurt his prestige. Hence we are of the opinion that, complainant is only entitle a token damage of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The Complaint is hereby allowed in part with cost.
2. OP i.e. Bank of Baroda represented by its Chief Manager/Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards damages and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses.
3.  OP is directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
4. 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 30^th  day of SEPTEMBER 2022)

MEMBER              MEMBER       PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the bank pass book

Ex P2: Copy of the share certificate

Ex. P3: Copy of the cheques.

Ex P4: Copy of the return memo issued by Bank of Baroda.

Ex P5: Copy of the cheque.

Ex P6: Copy of the return memo issued by Bank of Baroda

Ex P7: Copy of the email message by complainant.

Ex P8: Copy of the email message received from Mr. Kunal.

Ex P9; Copy of the Legal notice.

Ex P10: Postal receipt and postal track consignment.

Ex P11: Certificate u/s 65 B of the Evidence Act.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri N Kiran Kumar Shetty  Senior Manager of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006.

Ex R2: Copy of the orders of the Banking Ombudsman.

MEMBER              MEMBER       PRESIDENT

RAK*