IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI Present: - THIRU.S. KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.89/2022 FRIDAY, THE 08^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023.

UNION BANK OF INDIA, Erstwhile Corporation Bank, Through its Branch Manager, 88/305, 1^st floor, West Masi Street, Madurai-1 Appellant/Opposite party.

-Vs-

Mr.R.Janakiramulu, S/o.Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, 18, North Masi Street, Madurai.

Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party : M/s.K.Jagadeesan, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : M/s.N.Murugan, Advocate.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dindigul made in C.C.No.78/2022, dated 29.07.2022 the opposite party corporation bank preferred this appeal. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 03.11.2023 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. The Facts:

The case of the complainant herein he is having SB account No.016100101007664 with the opposite party bank and on 15.04.2011 the complainant presented 21 cheques for a total value of Rs.1,07,200/- but the opposite party illegally deducted Rs.31500/- out of the opening balance with regard to 7 cheques. Similarly on 18.04.2011 the complainant had presented 20 cheques in which 10 cheque amount of Rs.91,497/- was deducted from the opening balance. Without giving credit to the above cheques amount deducting its value amounted deficiency in service and it is illegal hence claiming a total amount of Rs.31500/-+ Rs.91497/- totally Rs.1,22,997/- with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- the complaint has been filed. The opposite party admitted the presentation of 21 cheques on 15.04.2011 and another 20 cheques on 18.04.201. It is their contention that outstation cheques were normally giving debit and after realization of the cheque only it will be credited and it is normal banking practice and there is no deficiency on their part.

2. Before the before District Commission both sides filed their proof affidavits Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.B1 were also marked. The District Commission after perusal of above pleadings documents, passed a detailed order allowing the claim and directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,22,997/- along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation with costs.

3. Aggrieved over the same the appeal has been preferred on the following Grounds that the order of the District Commission is not sustainable in law and facts of the case. The District Commission without perusing even Ex.A1 passed the above Judgment wrongly as per Ex.A1, 7 outstanding cheques were pending clearance and the closing balance were correctly stated and there is no illegal deduction as alleged and as held by the District Commission.

4. In this case both sides appeared through counsels, written arguments and oral arguments were heard. The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank argued the case respectively. For getting clarification a bank officer also present and tried to explain the banking procedures.

5. Now the points for consideration is

1. Whether the bank has committed any deficiency in service?

6. Discussion on the Point:-

Admittedly the complainant is an advocate. As alleged by him as a standing counsel he received cheques from various Panchayat and other clients by way of cheques towards his fees. The above cheques were presented for collection on 15.04.2011. Out of 21 cheques presented on 15.04.2011, only 7 cheques had some issues in this case. Similarly, 20 cheques were presented on 18.07.2011 out of which 10 cheques were in issue before this commission. The above cheque number and the value has been given in detailed manner in the complaint as well as hereunder, S.No. Cheque no. Amount Date