State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.Venkatesh S/O Late Rama Chandraiah vs M/S Karur Vysya Bank Limited on 30 September, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 485 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.126 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM RANGA REDDY Between S.Venkatesh S/o late Rama Chandraiah aged aout 40 years, Occ: Business R/o Flat No.103 in Plot No.618, Sehshasai Residency, Defence Colony Sainikpuri, Ranga Reddy Dist.-094 with SB A/c No.1465155 15024 Appellant/complainant A N D M/s Karur Vysya Bank Limited A.S. Rao Nagar Branch # Plot No.1-2, Pragathi Nagar A.S.Rao Nagar, Ranga Reddy -032 Rep. by its Manager. Respondent/opposite party Counsel for the Appellants M/s Singam Bhagaiah Counsel for the Respondent M/s P.Rajesh Babu QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed complaint claiming a sum of `2,00,000/- towards compensation and interest thereon @24% p.a. on the premise that the respondent-bank returned the cheque issued by him on 6.04.2011 for a sum of `8,518/- which was mentioned by oversight as 6.04.2011 and that the respondent returned the cheque on the ground that it was outdated. The appellant submitted that the amount was credited on 13.07.2011.
2. The appellant submitted that he issued another cheque in favour of the same drawee, i.e., Janjilla Company for an amount of `4,125/- on 5.07.2011 and he deposited the amount of `5,000/- on 7.07.2011 and the respondent returned the cheque on the ground that the funds in the appellants account were not sufficient to honor the cheque.
3. The respondent-bank resisted the claim on the premise that every cheque issued by its customers in favour of third parties would be sent to its Central Clearing Office at Hyderabad and as per double entry system the amount mentioned in the cheque will at first be debited from the account from the account of the drawer of the cheque and then in case it is found that the cheque is outdated or if the account does not contain sufficient funds or if the instrument suffered from any technical defect, the amount at first debited would be credited to the account of the drawer of the cheque.
4. The Central Clearing Office of the respondent-bank at first debited an amount of `8,518/- from the appellants account on 7.04.2011 when the cheque was received by it for collection and subsequently the instrument was found outdated and the cheque was returned with endorsement instrument outdated. As such the amount of `8,518/- which was debited from the appellants account on 7.04.2011 and which was to be credited on the same day was not happened and the amount was credited to his account on 13.04.2011 since the systems of the central clearing office of the respondent failed on 7.04.2011.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant deposited again an amount of `3,200/- on 11.04.2011 and the cheque issued by him in favour of Laxmi on 12.04.2011 was cleared on 12.04.2011 and at the time the balance amount in the account of the appellant was `1,817/- and when the cheque was presented on 13.04.2011 for an amount of `8,518/-and the amount was credited to the account of the appellant, the appellants account was having balance of `10,835/- including the amount of `500/- deposited by him on 13.04.2011 for the purpose of clearing the cheque of `1,327/-.
6. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents,ExsA1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent, its Branch Manager has filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.B1 and B2.
7. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that there were no sufficient funds in the account of the appellant at the time the cheques were sent for clearance and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-bank.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the district Forum had not considered the evidence on record and passed the order on conjectures and surmises. It is contended that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-bank.
9. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
10. The issuance of two cheques and their being dishonored for the reasons that the cheque issued earlier on 6.04.2010 was outdated and the cheque issued on 13.4.2011 was bounced on account of insufficient funds in the account of the appellant are beyond any dispute. The learned counsel for the respondent-bank has contended that if any cheque issued by the appellant is bounced during the period from 7.04.20011 to 13.04.2011, deficiency in service can be attributed to the respondent bank. The appellant deposited a sum of `3,200/- on 11.04.2011 which was debited with `2,272/- on 12.04.2011 and that on that day the balance in the account of the appellant was `1,817/-. The appellant deposited a sum ofRs.500/- on 13.04.2011 and the total amount in his account came to `2,317/-.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent bank has contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the appellant has been mis-utilizing his savings bank account for commercial purpose and the two disputed transactions are commercial transaction are commercial transactions.
Statement of Account for the period from 01.04.2011 to 18.04.2011 and 05.07.2011 to 10.07.2011 TXN DT VALUE_DT BRN DESCRIPTION REFERENCE DEBITS CREDITS BALANCE 07/04/11 07/04/11 1442 To Clg:Janjilla 000000049700 8,518.00
-
889.20 13/04/11 13/04/11 1442 Chq.49700 out dated chq retn
-
-
8,518.00 10,835 07/07/11 07/07/11 1465 Cash Deposit 5,000.00 0,040,20 07/07/11 07/07/11 1442 To Clg:janjila, 000000990742 4,125.00 1,915.20
12. A perusal of the statement of account would show that the appellant issued the cheque for an amount of `8,518/- in favour of Janjilla Company and another cheque for a sum of `4,125/- in favour of the same drawee i.e., M/s. Janjilla Company and both the cheques were dishonored. The cheque dated 13.4.2011 was dishonoured as the appellant had not maintained sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque and the other cheque was returned for the reason that the appellant had mentioned in it the date as 13.4.2010 instead of 13.4.2011. Thus, there cannot be any deficiency in service found on the part of the respondent-bank. Even otherwise, the complaint is not maintainable before consumer forum.
13. Thus, viewed from any angle there has been no deficiency in service established on the part of the respondent bank in dishonoring the two cheques presented by the appellant with the respondent bank. As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.30.09.2013 కె.ఎం.కె*