State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank vs Jayanthi on 17 May, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT THIRU R VENKATESAPERUMAL : MEMBER F.A. No. 208 of 2017 (Against the order passed in C.C. No.04 of 2012 dated 21.03.2017 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Perambalur). Wednesday, the 17th day of May 2023 The Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank Veppur Branch Kunnam Taluk Perambalur District. .. Appellant/ Opposite Party - Vs - Mrs. Jayanthi W/o. Mohan Veppur Branch Kunnam Taluk Perambalur District. .. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. Sheela Venkatesh For the Respondent/Complainant : Served, Absent This Appeal is coming before us for hearing today and, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and upon perusing the material records, this Commission passes the following:- O R D E R
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court] This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 21.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.04 of 2012, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein, in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the District Forum.
3. It is the case of the complainant that she was holding a Savings Bank Account with the opposite party, since 2005. Her Savings Bank Account Number is 8145. She is working as a Teacher in Panchayat Union School, Aandikurumbalur. Every month her salary gets deposited in the savings bank account of the complainant at the opposite party's Bank. The complaint took a life insurance policy from Life Insurance Corporation for her son and herself. The complainant had issued a cheque dated 20.06.2011 for Rs.16,618/- in favour of LIC, towards payment of insurance premium amount. The LIC had presented the cheque with their bankers for collection of the premium amount. But, the said cheque issued by the complainant was returned on 23.06.2011 on the ground "signature not scanned". On receiving the returned cheque, LIC had sent a notice dated 27.06.2011 to the complainant stating that since her cheque has been returned as "signature not scanned" by the Bank, she has to pay the premium amount by cash along with Rs.135/- towards cheque return charges. The Return Memo received from the bank was also enclosed along with the notice sent to the complainant by the LIC. On receipt of the said intimation, the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about return of her cheque, since she had a balance of more than One Lakh Rupees in her Savings Bank Account. But the staff of the opposite party did not give any proper reply. On the other hand, they informed that if she is not interested to continue her Savings Bank account in their Bank, she can go and open an account with some other Bank. This had caused mental harassment to the complainant. On 01.07.2011, she again issued a cheque to the LIC through her relative. But, LIC refused to receive the cheque stating that since the cheque already issued by her was returned, they cannot receive the premium amount by cheque and that the complainant had to make payment only by cash. In the meantime, the LIC policy got lapsed. The complainant had issued another cheque bearing No.457285 for Rs.1,00,000/- to her sister, for the purpose of purchase of a house. Since the said cheque was also returned by the Opposite party Bank stating 'signature not scanned', the complainant's sister was unable to fulfil the Agreement and the Agreement got cancelled. Due to the said cancellation, they were unable to get refund of their initial payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. In view of the financial loss and mental sufferings, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 04.10.2011 to the opposite party. Though the notice was received by the opposite party, they have not sent any reply. Hence, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had filed the complaint, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service and mental agony; along with Rs.135/- being the cheque return charges and the cost of the proceedings.
4. The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party filing a written version stating that the complainant is a customer of the opposite party Bank and her Savings Bank Account No.8145. It is true that the complainant's cheque for Rs.16,618/- got presented. But the cheque was returned with the endorsement "signature was not scanned". It is not a mechanical defect of the scanner because the signatures of the other customers have been scanned on that date and the cheques have been honoured. Since the signature found in the cheque issued by the complainant did not tally with the signature that has been already scanned and recorded in the Bank, the cheque was returned. There is no motive or enmity by the opposite party Bank or staff with the complainant. The alleged demand of the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the premium amount by cash and the alleged lapse of the LIC Policy and the loss of Rs.2,00,000/- accrued to the complainant are all make belief affair of the complainant, without any regard to truth. The return of the other cheque given by the complainant to her sister Chitra, on the same ground and the consequential lapses as alleged by the complainant, are not true. Therefore, in no way the opposite party Bank is liable for the said incidents. Since the signature found in the instruments did not match with the recorded signature of the complainant in the scanner, the signature was not scanned and consequentially the cheques have been dishonoured. Further, the then Manager had retired from service and so the opposite party Bank is not aware of the fact whether any legal notice was received or any reply was sent to the complainant. Thus, absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence sought for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case, both the parties have filed their proof affidavits and on the side of the complainant, 8 documents have been marked as Exhibits A1 to A8 and the complainant Tmt. Jayanthi was examined as PW-1. On the side of the opposite party, 1 document was marked as Ex.B1 and the opposite party Mr.Thirumavalavan was examined as RW1.
6. After analyzing the entire evidence on the record, the District Forum had come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in returning the cheque and hence directed the opposite party Bank to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses. Against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite party.
7. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent/complainant. Keeping in mind the submission made by the appellant/opposite party, we have carefully perused the entire material available on records.
8. On perusal of the records, we find that the respondent/ complainant was holding a Savings Bank Account with the appellant/ opposite party Bank. The Account Number is 8145. She had issued a cheque for Rs.16,618/- towards premium amount in favour of Life Insurance Corporation on 20.06.2011. The Life Insurance Corporation had presented the cheque with their Bankers. But the cheque was returned by the appellant/opposite party with the endorsement "signature not scanned". Since the cheque was returned, the Life Insurance Corporation refused to receive any further cheques from the complainant and insisted the complainant to pay the premium amount in cash. Since the premium amount was not paid on time, the policy got lapsed. But, it is not disputed that on the date of presentation of the cheque, sufficient fund was available in the Savings Bank Account of the complainant. A primary duty cast upon the Appellant Bank is to scan the signature of the complainant in a proper manner. In the present case, the Appellant Bank had miserably failed to do so. When the signature was not scanned, atleast they ought to have contacted the customer, namely, the complainant before returning the cheque. But, without doing so, mechanically they have returned the cheque, which would have certainly caused mental agony to the complainant, especially in the circumstances when the complaint was having sufficient balance in her account. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum allowing the complaint. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 21.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.04 of 2012, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur is confirmed. No order as to costs.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R.SUBBIAH MEMBER PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/May /2023