Complaint is filed on 1-7-2009
Compliant disposed on 5-8-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.,LL.M.,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS), MEMBER
SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN RAO, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 103 OF 2009
Between:
Gatla Maruthi, S/o. Venkata Narsaiah, Age 35 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. Vaninagar locality of Jagtial proper and mandal district Karimnagar.
… Complainant
AND
- The Andhra Bank, Vaninagar branch, Jagtial, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Vaningar branch, Jagtial, district Karimnagar.
- The Andhra Bank, Service Centre, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Service Centre, Taramandal complex, 1st floor, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 12-7-2010, in the presence of Sri J. Sriramulu and B.Shankaraiah, Advocates for complainant and Sri Ch.Shiva Kumar Raju, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following:
:: ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.40,000/- towards the amount covered by cheque with interest, costs and compensation.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is an Account Holder of the opposite parties having Savings Bank Account NO.11717 at Jagitial Branch. It is submitted that one K.Raju gave a cheque for Rs.40,000/- Dt: 15.9.2007 drawn on City Union Bank Ltd., Hyderabad in favour of the complainant in discharge of a loan obtained by him. The cheque was deposited in his account with opposite party no.1 Bank on 13.3.2008 for collection of the amount covered by the cheque, but the opposite parties returned the cheque on the ground that it is a “stale cheque’ as 6 months period expired. It is submitted by the complainant that had the opposite parties sent the cheque in time to the drawee Bank the amount would have been received by him, but because of negligence on their part the cheque became stale and no amount was paid under it. The complainant got issued a Legal Notice on 26.4.2008 claiming the amount from the opposite parties for which a reply is given by them with false and baseless allegations. As there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in presenting the cheque for collection, the complainant claimed an order for payment of the amount covered by the cheque.
3. The opposite parties filed counter submitting that there was no delay or deficiency on their part in sending the cheque for collection of the amount. It is further submitted that on 13.3.2008 the complainant deposited the cheque Dt: 15.9.2007 in their Bank and on receipt of the same it was sent to service branch of Andhra Bank at Hyderabad for collection of amount covered by the cheque as the cheque pertains to City Union Bank Ltd., Hyderabad. It was received in Hyderabad in the evening hours of 14.3.2008. On the morning of 15.3.2008 the service Center i.e. opposite party no.2 entered the cheque in Computer to send information for collection of this amount, while feeding the cheque the Computer did not accept as the validity period of the cheque expired and it has become a stale cheque. With the same endorsement the Computer rejected the same, therefore the cheque was returned to the opposite party no.1 to inform the same about non-payment of the amount. In turn the opposite party no.1 returned the original cheque to the complainant with a memo giving reasons for non-payment of the amount. When a Legal Notice is received from the complainant a suitable reply was issued explaining the circumstances under which the cheque was returned. Since the opposite parties acted promptly there was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of opposite parties, hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the original cheque bearing no.120823 for Rs.40,000/- Dt: 15.9.2007. Ex.A2 is the original Savings Bank Account Pay-in-Slip Dt: 13.3.2008 for Rs.40,000/-. Ex.A3 is the original letter from opposite party no.1 addressed to complainant Dt: 9.4.2008. Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Forwarding Schedule of cheque sent to Branch Office on 13.3.2008. Ex.A5 is the office copy of Legal Notice issued by counsel for complainant addressed to opposite parties Dt: 26.4.2008. Ex.A6 contains original postal receipts Dt: 26.4.2008. Ex. A7 is the postal acknowledgement card Dt; 29.4.2008. Ex.A8 is the original reply notice issued by opposite parties addressed to V.Venu Gopal Advocate Dt: 13.5.2008.
5. The opposite parties filed the Proof Affidavit of the Branch Manager of opposite party no.1 Bank and the documents filed by him are marked as Ex.B1 & B2. Ex.B1 is the original courier receipt Dt: 13.3.2008. Ex.B2 & A5 are one and the same documents.
6. The points for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
7. Heard both sides.
8. It is contended by the complainant that on account of negligence on the part of opposite parties he could not receive the amount covered under Ex.A1 cheque. The opposite parties sent a letter under Ex.A3 stating that the cheque became “stale” as the validity period of cheque expired. When a Legal Notice under Ex.A5 was issued the opposite parties sent a reply under Ex.A8 with false and baseless allegations. It is contended by the complainant that the opposite parties are bound to pay the amount covered by the cheque. The complainant relied on a judgment reported in 1999 (2) Crimes at page 11 rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
9. It is contended by the opposite parties that the complainant presented the cheque only 2 days before the expiry of it’s validity period and as soon as it is received from the complainant cheque was sent to Hyderabad for collection of the amount, but the amount could not be received from the Drawee Bank as the cheque became “stale”. Therefore, it was retuned to the complainant with a memo showing reasons. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant cannot claim the amount from the Bank as he did not give sufficient time to the Bank for taking necessary steps. The opposite parties relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Commission reported in 2010 (2) CPR at page 179.
10. The case of the complainant is that because of negligence on the part of opposite parties in sending the cheque for collection of the amount covered by the cheque it could not be recovered. A perusal of the cheque under Ex.A1 reveals that it was issued to the complainant on 15.9.2007 pertaining to City Union Bank Ltd., Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad for Rs.40,000/-. On 13.3.2008 it was deposited by the complainant in his account as the cheque is a crossed one. On receipt of the same the opposite party no.1 forwarded the same to it’s Service Centre at Hyderabad for collection of the amount covered by the cheque. It was received in the evening of 14.3.2008 and when it was fed in the Computer on 15.3.2008 it was rejected as the validity period of the cheque expired with an endorsement that the cheque became a “stale cheque”. Accordingly it was returned to the complainant along with a letter under ex.A3 Dt: 9.4.2008.
11. Though the complainant received the cheque on 15.9.2007 he presented the same for collection of the amount only 2 days before it’s expiry. There was no explanation given by the complainant as to why he did not take steps to present the same much before expiry of the validity period. At the time of depositing the cheque on 13.3.2008, he knew that it has to be sent to Hyderabad for collection of the amount from the Drawee Bank which will take considerable time. On account of his delay in depositing the cheque it has become a stale cheque. Further the complainant has not furnished any statement of account maintained by the person who issued the cheque to show that sufficient balance was available in his account to honour the cheque under Ex.A1. If at all the person who issued the cheque is liable to pay the amount, the complainant can take steps for recovery of the amount by filing a Civil Suit for recovery of money. The judgment relied on by the complainant reported in 1999 (2) crimes at page 11 rendered by Hon’ble high Court of Madras is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case the cheque was presented after expiry of the validity period because of public holidays. But in the present case the complainant did not give sufficient time to the opposite parties for collection of the amount covered by the cheque.
12. The opposite party no.1 acted promptly in sending the cheque for collection of the amount by forwarding it to Hyderabad on the same day immediately on deposit by the complainant. After receipt of the cheque in Hyderabad the Service Centre i.e. opposite party no.2 tried to send it through Computer for collection on 15.3.2008, but it was rejected as the validity period of cheque expired. Had the complainant deposited the chequ much before the expiry date the opposite parties would have made efforts to collect the amount covered by the cheque. When the complainant himself is negligent the opposite parties cannot be made liable to pay the amount of the cheque or any damages. In a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Commission reported in 2010 (2) CPR at page 179 it is held that “Compensation cannot be awarded against the bank if the cheque is returned with endorsement “out of date.” The said judgment is applicable to the fact of this case as the complainant presented the cheque issued by one Raju drawn on City Union Bank Ltd. Hyderabad present in the Andhra Bank for collection only 2 days before expiry of it’s validity period knowingfully well that cheque has to be processed through several stages in Banks at Hyderabad. For the above said reasons, we hold, that there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Since the complainant himself is negligent in presenting the cheque just before expiry he cannot seek any relief against the opposite parties and he failed to prove his claim of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought by him, hence the complaint is dismissed without costs.
13. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 5th day of August, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the original cheque bearing no.120823 for Rs.40,000/- Dt: 15.9.2007.
Ex.A2 is the original Savings Bank Account Pay-in-Slip Dt: 13.3.2008 for Rs.40,000/-.
Ex.A3 is the original letter from opposite party no.1 addressed to complainant Dt: 9.4.2008.
Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Forwarding Schedule of cheque sent to Branch Office on 13.3.2008.
Ex.A5 is the office copy of Legal Notice issued by counsel for complainant addressed to opposite parties Dt: 26.4.2008.
Ex.A6 contains original postal receipts Dt: 26.4.2008.
Ex. A7 is the postal acknowledgement card Dt; 29.4.2008.
Ex.A8 is the original reply notice issued by opposite parties addressed to V.Venu Gopal Advocate Dt: 13.5.2008.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 is the original courier receipt Dt: 13.3.2008.
Ex.B2 & A5 are one and the same documents.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
