State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uco Bank vs Sameer B.Thiba on 12 May, 2023
A/19/875
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/19/875
(Arisen out of order dated 29/06/2019 passed in complaint No.431 of 2015 of
District Commission Mumbai Suburban)
UCO Bank,
Andheri (West) Branch,
Building No.4, Yashodhan Apts.,
4 Bungalow, Andheri (West),
Mumbai - 400 053. ....... Appellant(s)
Versus
SAMEER BABUBHAI THIBA,
Residing at B-401, Sanjeev Enclave,
7 Bungalow, J.P. Road, Versova,
Mumbai - 400 061. .....Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Justice S.P. Tavade - President
A.Z. Khwaja - Judicial Member
For the Appellant:
Advocate Snehal Khatate
For the Respondent:
Advocate Chaurasiya
ORDER
(12/05/2023)
Per Hon'ble Justice S.P. Tavade - President:
1) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed in Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2015 dated 29/06/2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, the original opponent has preferred this appeal.
1A/19/875 (The parties to this appeal shall be called and referred as per their status in original complaint).
2) Facts giving rise to prefer the present appeal can be summarised as under:
The complainant was having Saving Bank Account bearing No.08770100190594 with the Opponent. The complainant had deposited two cheques bearing Nos.009383 and 052867 amounting to Rs.6/- and Rs.1,75,000/- respectively drawn on ICICI Bank/SVC Bank respectively for encashment on 04/10/2013 and 11/10/2013 respectively. The opponent credited the amount of the said cheques in the Saving Bank Account of the Complainant in the year 2013. On 10/08/2015 the opponent issued letter to the complainant and informed that the above cheques deposited by him for encashment were not honoured by the Drawee Bank and asked him to revalidate the said cheques, but, the complainant refused the same, because, information about dishonour of cheques was given after more than two years. It is contended that on 13/08/2015 complainant issued Cheque of Rs.98,000/- drawn on the opponent Bank in favour of Mona Thiba. The said cheque was not honoured by the opponent. The complainant made enquiry with the opponent. Accordingly, the opponent informed that the amount credited in the account of the complainant was freezed for recovery of amount of dishonoured cheque. It is contended that the opponent gave information of dishonour of two cheques on 10/08/2015. The said two cheques were deposited by the complainant in his account on 04/10/2013 and 11/10/2013 respectively. Therefore, the period of taking action against the drawer was expired. Similarly, no information of 2 A/19/875 dishonour of cheque was given by the opponent to the complainant within reasonable time. Therefore, the complainant was not able to take action against the drawer of the cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended that the complainant issued letter to the opponent requesting them to defreeze the amount in his account. But, no action was taken by the higher officers of opponent. The complainant has also issued letter to Head Office as well as Zonal Office of opponent for taking necessary steps to release of the amount but no action was taken. Hence, the complainant filed present complaint praying for release of his account. He also prayed for compensation and costs.
3) Notice of the complaint was issued to the opponent. The opponent appeared and filed its written version. It was admitted that the complainant was having Saving Bank Account with the opponent.
The allegations made in the complaint were specifically denied. It was contended that the complainant has deliberately twisted the facts of the present dispute in an attempt to mislead the Commission. It was contended that two cheques bearing Nos.009383 and 052867 presented by complainant were dishonoured by Drawee Bank. It was contended that the opponent has suo-motu requested the complainant to get the cheques revalidated. However, the complainant without taking action against the drawer of the cheque, had attempted to utilize the machinery of the Commission to pressurize the opponent and unjustly enrich itself. It was contended that Reserve Bank of India had issued guidelines for undertaking and implementing a clearing system known as Cheque Truncation System (CTS clearing) wherein data on the cheque is captured at the collecting bank branch and transmitted electronically, thus, resulting 3 A/19/875 in an effective reduction in the time required for payment of cheques, the associated cost of transit and delays in processing etc., thus, speeding up the process of collection or realization of cheques. It was contended that CTS/ICS substantially reduces the time taken to clear the cheques as well as enables banks to offer better customer service and increases operational efficiency by cutting down on overheads involved in the physical cheque clearing process. It was contended that at initial stage of CTS clearing were full of technical errors which were later handled manually by the Banks. It was further contended that one such case was mentioned that the funds mentioned in the cheque were transferred into the customer's account electronically without much delay and thereafter such monies were collected from the drawee later on. It was contended that such funds were possessed/held by the customer in trust till actual realization of monies by the Bank. However, it was contended that in the present case although funds were transferred in Complainant's account, the cheque did not get realized from the drawee bank i.e. the drawee bank did not debit the account. It was contended that under normal circumstances, the bank immediately informs the Customer about such non-debit and blocks the amount credited in customer's account. However, in the instant case due to unknown technical glitch, such action on the part of the drawee bank never came to be reflected in the system maintained by the opponent. It was contended that as per procedure opponent duly informed the complainant about non-realisation of monies and opponent earmarked the saving account of the complainant. It was contended that procedure which adopted by the opponent was in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and binding upon the Complainant as well. It was contended that 4 A/19/875 the account was earmarked for recovery of wrong credit. It was contended that the cheque dated 13/08/2015 drawn in favour of Ms.Mona Thiba was not honoured by the opponent. It was contended that the complainant deliberately issued the said cheque three days subsequent to intimation by the opponent to the complainant that the amount of Rs.1,75,006/- was debited by the opponent for the reasons mentioned in the said intimation letter dated 10/08/2015. It was contended that the opponent sought to reverse the wrong credit made in the account of the complainant and thus, by no stretch of imagination can such an action on the part of the opponent be termed as "high-handedness and/or misappropriation of funds" as alleged by the complainant. It was contended that the cheques deposited by the complainant were remained uncleared by the Drawee Banks. Therefore, the account of complainant was earmarked for refrain of wrong care. Said monies are lying to the account of the complainant and so it cannot be called as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Opponent has contended that the complaint is not tenable and prayed that it be dismissed with costs.
4) The complainant and the opponent filed affidavit of evidence as well as documents in support of their case. Heard advocate for the complainant as well as advocate for the opponent.
5) Admittedly, the complainant was Consumer of the opponent. The complainant was maintaining his Saving Bank Account No.08770100190594 with the opponent. It is admitted fact that on 04/10/2013 and 11/10/2013 the complainant deposited cheque bearing No.009383 amounting to Rs.6/- and cheque bearing No. 5 A/19/875 052867 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank and SVC Bank respectively with the opponent. The amounts of said cheques were credited in the account of the complainant. It is admitted fact that on 10/08/2015 opponent wrote letter to the complainant and informed the complainant that the above cheques were not cleared by the Drawee Banks, hence, they earmarked the Saving Bank Account of the complainant for recovery of wrong credit of Rs.1,75,006/-. It is also admitted fact that on 13/08/2015 complainant issued cheque of Rs.98,000/- bearing No.653654 in favour of Mona Thiba. The said cheque was dishonoured as the credit of complainant account was freezed for recovery of the amounts of two dishonoured cheques. The complainant made several correspondence with the opponent. The opponent also replied the letters of the complainant, but, the fact remains on record that amount at the credit of complainant on 10/08/2015 was freezed.
6) In view of the fact the learned advocate for the complainant has vehemently submitted that the complainant had presented two cheques in the month of October, 2013. The amount of the said cheques was credited in the account of complainant, but, the information regarding dishonour of said cheques was given to complainant by letter dated 10/08/2015. It is contended that the opponent informed the complainant that the said cheques be revalidated and be represented for encashment. But, due to long lapse of time the complainant could not take any action for dishonour of cheques issued by the drawer. It is true that the opponent simply issued letter dated 10/08/2015 and informed the complainant that two cheques presented by him were not cleared by the drawee bank. For taking action against the same it was expected 6 A/19/875 from the Drawee Bank to issue memo of dishonour of cheque to the complainant so that he could have taken action against the drawer. The opponent has not taken any action within reasonable time so the complainant could not take action against the drawer of a cheque for dishonor thereof.
7) It is case of the opponent that the Reserve Bank of India had started clearing system, namely Cheque Truncation System (CTS clearing) for effective reduction in time required for payment of cheque. It was also case of the opponent that at initial stage of the CTS the clearings were failed due to technical reason which were later handled manually by the Bank. Therefore, the opponent could not check the position of cheques presented by the complainant within short time. But, we are not inclined to accept the said statement because Bank carries out audit periodically. At least quarterly or yearly basis. But, the said fault was not detected for about two years. The complainant was deprived of from taking action against the drawer and/or any other act due to lapse of time. Therefore, the opponent cannot take advantage of its own wrong to deprive the complainant. The complainant was not at fault. Had the opponent informed the complainant regarding dishonor of cheques at the earliest and within a period of limitation, then the complainant could have taken action against the drawer. After lapse of about two years it was impossible for the complainant to take legal action against the drawer for recovery of the amount. So, it can be said that due to non-action of the opponent the complainant was affected. It was duty of the opponent to inform the complainant about dishonor of cheque within reasonable time which it failed, so, the said action on the part of the opponent can be called as deficiency in service. In 7 A/19/875 spite of several communications between the parties the issue regarding dishonour of cheques was not sorted out by the opponent. The action of the opponent to freeze the account of the complainant was not proper and it amounts to deficiency in service.
8) The District commission has considered the documents on record properly and came to correct conclusion that the opponent was deficient in service by not informing the dishonor of cheques within time and also freezed the account of the complainant. Hence, we do not wish to interfere with the findings and the order of the District Commission. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Order Passed by the District Commission in Complaint No.431 of 2015 on 29/06/2019 is hereby confirmed.
(iii) Parties to bear their own costs.
(iv) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 12th May, 2023.
[Justice S.P. Tavade]
President
[A.Z. Khwaja]
Judicial Member
emp
8