Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5120
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
T.G. Shivashankare Gowda, President, Divyashree M, Lady Member
Sreemathi Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
SC/29/CC/471/2019|SC/29/CC/472/2019|SC/29/CC/473/2019|SC/29/CC/474/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.S.Radha Jayanthi
For the Respondents: Raghu S
A bank acts in accordance with its duty when it follows official RBI circulars for Cheque Truncating System (CTS) clearing; failure by a customer to notify the bank of stolen cheques upon receiving SMS alerts precludes a finding of negligence or deficiency of service against the bank.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17 - Cheque Truncating System (CTS) - Deficiency of service - Allegation of negligence by bank in clearing non-CTS cheques - RBI circular directed banks to phase out non-CTS cheques by 31.12.2018 - Bank processed cheques electronically via CTS grid - Complainant failed to intimate bank regarding theft of cheques despite receiving SMS alerts - Court held that banks are bound by RBI circulars and cannot be held liable for processing legitimate clearing requests in absence of stop-payment instructions - No deficiency of service established. (Paras 11, 14, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, a senior citizen, alleged that her bank acted with negligence by clearing four cheques worth Rs.61,00,000 each, which she claimed were stolen and forged. She contended that as per a notification, non-CTS cheques should not have been accepted after 12.12.2018. The bank, however, argued that it followed RBI guidelines for the CTS grid clearing process and that the complainant did not respond to SMS alerts sent when the cheques were presented.
Findings of Court:
The commission observed that the complainant failed to substantiate negligence by the bank and did not provide evidence of timely communication regarding the alleged theft. The bank was acting in compliance with RBI mandated clearing procedures.
Issues: Whether the act of the bank in returning the cheques amounts to a deficiency of service given the transition to the CTS system and the complainant's claim of theft.
Ratio Decidendi: A bank is not liable for deficiency of service when it complies with the regulatory circulars of the Reserve Bank of India, and the customer fails to provide a stop-payment notice or alert the bank of stolen instruments upon receiving automated transaction alerts.
Result: Complaints dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filing under consumer protection act regarding banking negligence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments concerning duty of care, rbi circulars, and cts clearing procedures. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. assessment of bank regulatory compliance and customer responsibility in security. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
|
Smt. Sreemathi Srinivasan, Aged About 69 Years, W/o. Srinivasa Iyengar, R/at: No.37, Galaxy Enclave, Jakkur Plantation Road, Jakkur, Yelahanka, Bangalore-560 064. (Complainant is same in C.C. Nos.471 to 473/2019) (Rep. by Sri/Smt. C.S.Radha Jayanthi, Advocate) |
.....Complainant/s. |
| - V/s - | |
|
1) Head office, Canara Bank, General Manager, Jeevan Prakash, 1131-1, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560005. 2) Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, Spensor's Towers, 86, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001. 3. Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Spensor's Towers, 86, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001. 4. Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, No.19, 1st Floor, South-End Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. 5. The Manager, Canara Bank, 38/39, 5th Cross, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore-560003. (OP Nos.1 to 5 are same in C.C. Nos.471 to 473/2019) (OP Nos.1 to 5 are represented by Sri. Raghu S, Advocate) |
.....Opposite party/s. |
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER:HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)
These complaints are filed Under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the C.P. Act) alleging deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.61,28,496/- each in all the cases.
2. The brief facts of the case are that; the complainant is owning a savings bank account with the opposite party No.5 bearing No.0409101052886 since from 1994. She has operating the said account by depositing and withdrawals. She has operated the account till 20.09.2006 and on 19.10.2006 she has issued a fresh pass-book and new cheque book has been issued to her on 31.10.2018.
2(a). The complainant has received warning message which reads as follows:-
"Non-CTS cheques will not be accepted for Clearing post 12.12.2018. Customers to contact home branch for CTS-2010 cheques. -GM, GA WING, HO"
2(b). On 13.12.2018 at about 09.15 AM the complainant received another message from the opposite party No.5 which reads as follows:-
In CC No.471/2019:-
"cheque No.000000243374 for Rs.61,00,000/- to the debit of A/c No. XXXXXX2886 issued in favour of Kannan K.R is received in clearing today. If not issued by you, please contact your branch immediately Canara Bank."
In CC No.472/2019:-
"cheque No.000000243375 for Rs.61,00,000/- to the debit of A/c No. XXXXXX2886 issued in favour of Kannan K.R is received in clearing today. If not issued by you, please contact your branch immediately Canara Bank."
In CC No.473/2019:-
"cheque No.000000243376 for Rs.61,00,000/- to the debit of A/c No. XXXXXX2886 issued in favour of Kannan K.R is received in clearing today. If not issued by you, please contact your branch immediately Canara Bank."
In CC No.474/2019:-
"cheque No.000000243377 for Rs.61,00,000/- to the debit of A/c No. XXXXXX2886 issued in favour of Kannan K.R is received in clearing today. If not issued by you, please contact your branch immediately Canara Bank."
The abnormal figure of amount mentioned in each cheque is Rs.61,00,000/- that to being issued by an women. The Bank could have raised the suspicion and carefully handled the SB account, instead the Bank has given a shock to the complainant that, the cheque has been dis-honored and intimation was sent to the present complainant, it amounts to negligence on the part of the opposite parties and thereby committed deficiency of service.
