This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Sk. Jani Miya, Advocate for complainant; Opposite parties No.1 to 4 called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri R.Kiran Kumar, FAC President)
This complaint is filed u/sec.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is Managing Partner of partnership firm by name Sreenivasa Constructions and he is class I contractor and his works are mainly in and around Manuguru Mandal. The opposite party No.2 was once a friend of the complainant and used to look after the works of the complainant firm. The opposite party no.3 is the son of the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.4 is the friend of the opposite party no.3. The complainant further submitted that by reposing faith on opposite party no.2 , the complainant used to handover the un-filled signed cheques for payment in contract works payable by the complainant. The opposite party no.2 by betraying the faith reposed on him did not account some cheques and gave undertaking that he would be responsible for them if they were found in future. The complainant further submitted that subsequently opposite party no.2 obtained loan from the complainant to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, to avoid the loan amount to the complainant, the opposite parties no.2 & 3 colluded to file a false cheque case to avoid the claim. The opposite party no.3 issued notice as if complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him and in discharge of the due amount , complainant was said to have issued the cheque bearing No.181886 drawn on SBH Kothagudem, which was allegedly bounced. The cheque in fact was bounced for the reason of account not traced. The complainant also submitted that the opposite parties no.2 & 3 failed in the first instance, they colluded with opposite party no.4 to initiate a false case against the complainant and hand in glove with the opposite party no.1 branch employees. The opposite party no.4 was implanted as if the complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- from opposite party no.4 and it was stated that the complainant issued a cheque bearing no.181887, drawn on opposite party no.1 for the discharge of borrowed amount. The complainant further submitted that all the opposite parties colluded to knock away the valuable rights of the complainant and gain wrongfully, the cheque bounce case u/sec. 138 of N.I.Act was instituted in the Hon’ble Court of the First Class Judicial Magistrate at Bodhan vide C.C.No.58/2010. The complainant also submitted that in fact the account number of the cheque is 640. The State Bank of Hyderabad branches have introduced 11 digit account numbers about 7 years back. The opposite parties no. 2 to 4, knew fully well that the cheque bearing no.181887 if presented in the same form as cheque would met the same faith i.e. the cheque would be returned for the reason of account not traced and it would be very difficult to prosecute cheque bounce case. For that the opposite parties forged the cheque by inserting a 11 digit number. Consequently the cheque was bounce for the reason of insufficient funds. On enquiry complainant came to know that the 11digit account number belongs to a firm, which is having similar name at Palvoncha. The opposite parties searched a firm, which is having similar name and after knowing that they put that firm’s account number on the cheque and got it bounced. That the cheque baring no.181886 was returned by the opposite party no.1 for the reason of account not traced and the adjacent cheque bearing no.181887 in the same bank was returned for the reason of insufficient funds. The complainant further submitted that on his letter, the opposite party no.1 had given letter to the complainant that the cheque was bounced on the account of third party which is having similar name as that of the complainant’s firm. This shows the negligence on the part of opposite party no.1 in rendering service to the complainant. And also submitted that the account no.640 was closed long back as in the year 1999 and the amount in that account was transferred to other account.
2. The complainant further submitted that he is facing prosecution before the Hon’ble Court of the First Class Judicial Magistrate at Bodhan of Nizambad District vide C.C.No.58/2010 as well as at Kothagudem. The complainant filed a private complaint against the opposite parties no.2 to 4 before the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Manuguru, Khammam District for the offences punishable U/sec.465, 468, 471, 420, 409 & 120-B of IPC which were referred to the Police Manuguru. The Police issued Fir in Crime No.158/2010, which is pending. The complainant also submitted that opposite parties are responsible, particularly the opposite party no.1 is responsible for the troubles, inconvenience, harassment and financial loss caused to the complainant. And if the opposite party no.1 had taken adequate care before processing the cheque bearing No.181887 all the mess could not have happened. For this complainant spent huge amount for prosecuting all the cases and also to appear before the Hon’ble courts which are far away from residential place. Vexing with the attitude, the complainant wrote a letter, issued notice through his counsel on 14-02-2010 and 18-06-2011 to the opposite party no.1, but the opposite party no.1 instead of paying damages got issued false reply. To attend court hearing at Bodhan, attending courts in Kothagudem and Manuguru, the complainant spent nearly Rs.1,00,000/-, only due to the negligence on the part of opposite party no.1 he forced to spent all these amounts. As such, the complainant approached the Forum for damages.
3. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents filed and marked as Exhibits A1 to A17.
Ex.A1:- Copy of the Cheque No. 181886 belong to the A/c No.640
Ex.A2:- Copy of the Memo of Andhra Bank
Ex.A3:- Copy of the Cheque return memo issued by the opposite party no.1 bank
Ex.A4:- Copy of the complaint submitted by the opposite party no.3 vide C.C.No.308 of 2009 on the file of the I Addnl. JFCM, Kothagudem.
Ex.A5:- Copy of the cheque return memo issued by the opposite party no.1 for the cheque no.181887.
Ex.A6:- Copy of the cheque no.181887 belong to the A/c No.640.
Ex.A7:- Copy of the complaint submitted by the Opposite party no.4 vide C.C. No.58 of 2010 on the file of the JFCM, Bodhan.
Ex.A8:- Copy of FIR in Cr. No.158 of 2010 of PS Manuguru, along with complaint.
Ex.A9:- Copy of the Under taking given by the opposite party no.2
Ex.A10:- Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party no.1 and its higher levels.
Ex.A11:- Postal receipts numbering 3 (Original).
Ex.A12:- Copy of the letter issued by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A13:- Letter to opposite party no.1 by the complainant.
Ex.A14:- Legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite party no.1
Ex.A15:- Copy of reply notice got issued by the opposite party no.1.
Ex.A16:- Office Copy of legal notice issued by the council for the complainant.
Ex.A17:- Postal receipts numbering 4.
4. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties.
5. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,
- Whether the opposite parties had rendered deficiency of service?
- To what relief?
Point No.1:- It is the case of the complainant that he is the Managing Partner of Partnership firm, Sreenivasa constructions, he is the class 1 contractor and his works are in Manuguru Mandal. At about 15 years back the opposite party no.2 sought help and guidance of the complainant in performing his own contract works, in the course of time opposite party no.2 behaved like a family member. Reposing faith on him, the complainant used to hand over un-filled cheques for payment in contract works payable by the complainant. As the opposite party no.2 did not account some cheques and on questioning by the complainant he answered that they were miss placed and gave under taking that he would be responsible for them if they were found in future. Subsequently, opposite party no.2 obtained a loan from the complainant to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and to avoid the loan amount payable to the complainant, the opposite party no.2 & 3 colluded to file a false case to avoid the claim. The opposite party no.3 issued notice, as if the complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him and in discharge of the due amount, the complainant had issued cheque bearing no.181886 drawn at SBH, Kothagudem, which was allegedly bounced for the reason of “account not traced”. As the opposite party no.2 & 3 failed to initiate cheque bouncing case in the above instance, they colluded with opposite party no.4 to initiate false case against the complainant hand in glove with the opposite party no.1 branch employees. For that opposite party no.4 was implanted as if the complainant issued the cheque bearing no.181887 drawn on opposite party no.1 for the discharge of the borrowed amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. The opposite party no.2 to 4 knew fully well that the cheque no.181887 if presented in the same form as the cheque bearing no.181886, the cheque would be returned for the reason of account not traced and it would be difficult to prosecute cheque bounce case for that the opposite parties no.2 to 4 forged the cheque by inserting 11 digit number on the upper side of the account no.640, subsequently cheque was bounced for the reason of “insufficient funds”. On enquiry the complainant came to know that the 11digit account number belongs to a firm with the similar name as Sreenivasa Constructions at Palvoncha. The cheque bearing no.181887 was returned by opposite party no.1 for the reason of “in sufficient funds”, on the letter of the complainant opposite party no.1 had given reply that the cheque was bounced on the account of third party firm which is having similar name. The complainant also pleased that by the false memo issued by opposite party no.1, the complainant is facing prosecution before Hon’ble Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate at Bodhan of Nizamabad District, vide C.C. No.58/2010 as well as at Kothagudem, and also submitted that the opposite parties are responsible for the troubles, inconvenience, harassment and financial loss caused to the complainant. And also submitted that if the opposite party no.1 had taken adequate care before processing the cheque bearing No.181887, all the mess would not have been happened. For that the opposite party no.1 committed deficiency of service for which the complainant spent huge amounts for prosecuting all the cases and also to appear before the Hon’ble courts, which are far away from his residential place. For the above the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.
It is evident from record that the cheque bearing no.181886 was dishonoured (as per Ex.A3), for the reason of “Account not traced”, the cheque bearing no.181887 (as per Ex.A5) was dishonoured for the reason of insufficient funds, even though both cheques were belongs to the account No.640 and it is also evident from that the complainant made correspondence with the Chief Manager of opposite party no.1 bank, the Chief Manager of opposite party no.1 bank given reply (as per Ex.A12), stating that “as the account number on the cheque is very old and account is not in operation, we searched for the account by name in the system and on that process got the account of M/s Sreenivasa Constructions, A/c. No.52131920217 of Paloncha, Khammam District which is entirely a different account. But as the name and style of the above two accounts are identical, we inadvertently returned the above cheque for the reason of “insufficient funds” presuming that both the account number (i.c.No.640 & 52131920217) are for the one and the same account. However, we have found out your Account No.01050061249 in the name of M/s Sreenivasa Constructions on which the above referred cheque was issued and advise you that your account with us was closed as on 17.06.1999 by transferring the balance amount to your another account No.01090030339, New No.52131923717 with us in your name, since been closed on 25.11.2009”.
From the above letter dated 17/08/2010 (Ex.A12), issued by the Chief Manager of opposite party no.1 bank, the opposite party no.1 bank admitted the issuance of two different memos for the cheques bearing no.181886 and 181887 of the same account no.640, which impact the multiplicity of the litigation against the complainant. And also we observed that to prosecute all the cases, the complainant has spent amounts to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Manuguru and also at Bodhan. We have carefully considered the contention raised by the complainant. However we are convinced and it is established beyond doubt that the negligence attributed to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 bank for which there was no reason why the complainant should have been suffered. On these circumstances, we think it appropriate to answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2:-
For the reasons stated above, this complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party no.1 bank to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards deficiency of service within one month from this date, failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest @9% P.A. on the above amount from today till actual payment is made. And also awarded Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards costs of this litigation. The complaint against opposite party no.2 to 4 is dismissed.
Dictated to the Steno, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 12th day of February, 2013.
FAC PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, KHAMMAM.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant: - None
Witnesses examined for opposite parties:- None
Exhibits marked for complainant:-
Ex.A1:- Copy of the Cheque No. 181886 belong to the A/c No.640
Ex.A2:- Copy of the Memo of Andhra Bank
Ex.A3:- Copy of the Cheque return memo issued by the opposite party no.1 bank
Ex.A4:- Copy of the complaint submitted by the opposite party no.3 vide C.C.No.308 of 2009 on the file of the I Addnl. JFCM, Kothagudem.
Ex.A5:- Copy of the cheque return memo issued by the opposite party no.1 for the cheque no.181887.
Ex.A6:- Copy of the cheque no.181887 belong to the A/c No.640.
Ex.A7:- Copy of the complaint submitted by the Opposite party no.4 vide C.C. No.58 of 2010 on the file of the JFCM, Bodhan.
Ex.A8:- Copy of FIR in Cr. No.158 of 2010 of PS Manuguru, along with complaint.
Ex.A9:- Copy of the Under taking given by the opposite party no.2
Ex.A10:- Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party no.1 and its higher levels.
Ex.A11:- Postal receipts numbering 3 (Original)
Ex.A12:- Copy of the letter issued by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A13:- Letter to opposite party no.1 by the complainant.
Ex.A14:- Legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite party no.1
Ex.A15:- Copy of reply notice got issued by the opposite party no.1.
Ex.A16:- Office Copy of legal notice issued by the council for the complainant.
Ex.A17:- Postal receipts numbering 4.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties No.1 to 4: - Nil -
FAC PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, KHAMMAM
