IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI Date of appeal filed: 02.07.2019 PRESENT THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.90/2019 WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF MAY 2024 C.Selvaraj, S/o Chellan, Mechanic, Poochatthanvilai, Neyyoor, Eraniel Post, Kanyakumari District. Appellant/Complainant -Vs-

The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Eraniel Branch, Colachel Road, Monday Market, Kanyakumari District. Respondent/Opposite Party Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : Mr.P.Thirumahilmaran, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party : Mr. N.Dilipkumar, Advocate.

Aggrieved with the dismissal order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil, in C.C.No.54/2017, dated 28.05.2019 the complainant preferred this appeal. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 26.03.2024 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (Dictated in Open Court).

1. The Facts: The complainant was one of the customer of the opposite party/IOB bank and had an account with the opposite party. On 17.10.2016 he presented a cheque drawn in his favour and issued by a chit company for Rs.89,000/with the opposite/bank. The opposite party gave credit in his Pass Book and the complainant on 27.10.2016 withdraw the above amount. Subsequently his account was freezed and he was asked by the bank to repay the amount as if the above cheque was returned for want of sufficient amount in the chit company’s account.. Alleging those actions are deficiency in service he filed a consumer complaint claiming Rs.1/- as a token damage.

2. The opposite party in their written version admitted that the amount was mistakenly credited even before the cheque was cleared by the drawee bank, The State Bank of India. But the complainant is liable to pay back the amount as per Section 72 of Indian Contract Act, it is the duty of a person to return the money if it was mistakenly handed over to him. Hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3. Before the District Commission the complainant alone filed proof affidavit, evidence and documents marked as Exhibits-A1 to A20, finally, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.

4. Aggrieved with the above dismissal order, the appeal has been preferred by the complainant, that the District Commission failed to note the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party in his case and requested this Commission to allow the appeal.

5. In this case appellant/complainant filed their written argument and their oral argument was not made. The respondent/opposite party filed their written argument and made an endorsement to treat their oral arguments as their written arguments. 6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the appeal is to be allowed?

7. Discussion on the Point: It is an admitted case that the complainant is the customer of the opposite party/IOB Bank and maintained an account with them. It is also admitted the complainant presented a cheque for Rs.89,000/- for collection through his account. Since the cheque was State Bank of India cheque the receiver’s bank sent the same for collection to the concern State Bank of India Branch.

8. It is the case of the complainant that the above cheque was given credit to his account after clearance from the State Bank of India. But in fact the above cheque was not cleared and it was returned to the opposite party/bank for the reasons ’funds insufficient’.

9. However the complainant withdraw an amount Rs.1,50,000/- including the above Rs.89,000/- from his bank account. Only after the withdrawal the bank intimated the complainant that by mistake the above cheque amount was credited in to his account and he is liable to return the above Rs.89,000/-.

10. Since the opposite party relied upon the Section 72 of Indian Contract Act it is necessary to reproduce the same.

A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delive