State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V. Baskaran,No.7, 1St Floor, Laxman ... vs The Branch Manager,Uti Bank,19, ... on 7 January, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER I Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.300/2007 [Against order in C.C.351/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)] DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY 2011 V. Baskaran, | No.7, 1st Floor, Laxman Nagar, | Appellant / Complainant Vakkil Thottam, Kandanchavadi, | Chennai 600 096. | Vs. The Branch Manager, | Respondent / Opposite Party UTI Bank, | 19, Mahatma Gandhi Road, | Adyar, Adyar Bus Depot, | Shastri Nagar, Chennai 600 020. | The Appellant / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a total sum of Rs.8,50,000/- towards cheque amount and mental agony with cost. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.05.2007 in C.C.351/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.12.2010, upon hearing the arguments of either counsels and perused the documents as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant : M/s.C.Umashankar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent / OP. : Mr.Rahul Balaji, Advocate. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1.
The complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant/appellant was having a savings bank account, with the opposite party, in which, he remitted a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 28.01.2004 by cheque, issued by third party. After giving credit, the complainant had several transactions. When he had received the statement of account, for the period January 2004 to March 2004, it revealed, the said Rs.5 lakhs was debited on 28.01.2004 itself. Immediately he demanded the authority concerned to give credit, for which, there was no reply, resulting, the complainant was unable to meet out his business commitment, leading to financial loss also.
3. The Bank, since failed to rectify its mistake, a legal notice was issued, which elicited only a false reply, exposing the fraud committed by the opposite party on the customer, which should be construed as deficiency, causing mental agony, for which also, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, in addition to, another sum of Rs.50,000/-, for expenses. Thus, claiming a total sum of Rs.8,50,000/-, a consumer complaint came to be filed, before the District Forum, Chennai (South).
4. The opposite party, admitting that the complainant was the account holder in their Bank, opposed the complaint on the grounds, inter alia, that on 28.01.2004, the business partner of the complainant by name Ramabhadran had presented a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs, to be credited in the account of the complainant, which was accepted, that when further scrutiny was made, it was found, alteration was not attested, resulting return of the cheque with Memo to the drawer for his signature and thereafter, he has not returned the cheque, resulting debiting the amount forthwith, as well informing the same to the complainant also, which cannot be termed as deficiency. It is the further defence of the opposite party, that complainant had knowledge about the debit entry, forthwith and therefore, it is false to say that he came to know only after receiving the accounts copy for the months January to March 2004, which can be seen from the notice issued by the complainant himself, that taking advantage of the fact, that by inadvertent and oversight the officials of the R.M. Hospital Extension Counter of the opposite party, credited the disputed cheque amount, not taking advantage of the further fact, that there was some dispute between the drawer and the complainant, a false case has been filed, as if, the Bank has committed deficiency, which is not so.
Thus, it is prayed for the dismissal.
5. The District Forum considering the admitted facts, as well as by oversight or by inadvertent, amount was credited, which was subsequently corrected, felt there was no deficiency of any kind. In this view, the complaint came to be dismissed, as per the order dated 22.05.2007, which is impugned on various grounds in this appeal.
6. The complaint is eloquently silent, about the person, who had issued the cheque, who had deposited the cheque for Rs.5 lakhs in the account of the complainant though it is an admitted fact, that both the complainant and the drawer had account in the same bank. It is also an admitted fact, that on deposit of a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs, a credit entry was made in the account of the complainant, on 28.01.2004, which was debited on the same date. According to the complainant, he was not informed and he came to know the debit only on seeing the account for the period January to March 2004, that is probably in the month of April 2004, which should be an unadulterated lie, as rightly pointed out by the opposite party.
7. Ex.A4 is the account copy, commencing from 28.01.2004 to 31.03.2004.
This document would disclose, on the same date for Rs.5 lakhs, credit entry was made and reverted, making debit entry. Even thereafter, as seen from this account, in the month of February and March, the complainant had several transactions, including cash withdrawal through ATM and withdrawing money, through cheque also or giving amount to somebody, through cheque also. Therefore, there was every possibility, to the complainant to know even before the account copy is received, that debit entry was made, on 28.01.2004 itself, which is evident from Ex.A1 notice. Ex.A1 is dated 29.01.2004, addressed by the complainant, to the Manager of the opposite party bank, where he has accused, that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs has been withdrawn from his account, without his knowledge, thereby showing that 28.01.2004 debit entry was known to the complainant on 29.01.2004. Thus, it is seen, the complainant with ulterior motive, averred a false case, as if, the Bank had committed deficiency, in not informing the debit entry, based upon the cheque returned to the drawer. For this reason alone, the complainant has not disclosed the details of the deposit of the cheque, in the complaint. Now we have to see, who had deposited the cheque, under what circumstances, the cheque was returned, to whom.
8. A reading of the complaint makes it, abundantly clear, undoubtedly also that the deficiency complained against the Bank is, not informing the debit entry and despite notice, the said entry was not reverted, giving credit. There is no case, as if, the cheque was not returned to him, for getting attestation being the account holder, that should be construed as deficiency. As pleaded in the Written Version, the complainant had land dealings ( Para 8 of the Written Version) with Ramabhadran or his family members and inter see, there was dispute. Taking advantage of that alone, as rightly contended on behalf of the Bank, knowing fully well, that the debit entry was made on the same day, for the mistake committed by the drawer of the cheque, a false complaint came to be filed. As seen from Ex.B1, the cheque was presented in the name of the complainant, in his account, by Ramabhadran, the drawer of the cheque. It appears from the Xerox copy, the date written as 28.01.2004, scored out, then written on the left side, as 27.01.2004, not attested. This cheque was returned, as seen from the slip, drawer signature required, date altered. There is no plea, as if, the Bank is colluding with Ramabhadran. No rules were brought to our notice, that the cheque should be returned, in case of any mistake, to the account holder alone, when the cheque was deposited, by third party. Generally, if the cheque is deposited by the account holder, then it is expected that the returned cheque should go to the depositor. In this case, the cheque was deposited by Ramabhadran, and the same was returned to Ramabhadran, on 28.01.2004 itself since he had deposited the cheque, seeking attestation for alteration. It is not known, under what circumstances, the cheque was deposited and under what circumstances, the said Ramabhadran had not re-deposited the cheque, attesting the alteration, which cannot be the subject matter of the Consumer Forum also. Therefore, the return of the cheque, by the Bank to Ramabhadran cannot be termed as deficiency, which is also not the case of the complainant, and while returning the cheque, a debit entry was made by the Bank also cannot be termed as deficiency in service and in fact, we should say, it is efficiency in service, atleast they have noticed the correction, in the cheque at later point of time. As adverted to above, it is not the case of the complainant, that the bank colluding with Ramabhadran, to help him, returned the cheque, altering the date or as if, the altered date has not been attested and therefore, for the return of the cheque, in the ordinary course, we are unable to fix any deficiency.
9. The complainant also has not taken into account for subsequent dealiang this amount, since no case has been made out, as if, believing the availability of this Rs.5 lakhs in his account, he had issued a cheque, bounced or something like that. It is the settled position of law that the account holder, is not entitled to the cheque amount, even in the case of loss of cheque or return of the cheque, whatever may be the reason and if at all, an account holder is entitled, to compensation for the deficiency of service, committed by the Bank. In this case, the deficiency complained is not acceptable, since the mistake committed inadvertently or by oversight alone, was rectified, on the same day, which was also made known to the complainant on the same day and that is why, a letter emanated from him on the next day. The District Forum considering the fact, had reached the just conclusion though not assigned reasons, which conclusion is agreeable to us, thereby showing, there is no merit in this appeal.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), in O.P.351/2005, dated 22.05.2007. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
S. SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II MEMBER II PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/mtjBank