PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 26^th day of September 2012

                                                                                                        Filed on : 26-10-2010

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

Shri. Paul Gomez,                                                 Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member

C.C. No.568/2010

     Between

Treesa Vidyadharan,                       :        Complainant

W/o. Vidyadharan,                             (By Adv. N.K. Mohanlal,

Vadyaruparabil,                                  50/1000/A1, Kannaki square

Mannam P.O.,                                    Edapally, Kochi-682 024)

Vazhikulangara,

Mannam road,

North Parur.

                                                And

Branch Manager,                             :         Opposite party

HDFC Bank Ltd.,                               (By Adv. Biju Meenattoor,

Adam Plaza,                                      M/s. Sanjay & Parvathi,

North Parur-683 513.                        “Neeti’, CC 43/375 K, Paul

                                                            Abrao road, Ernakulam North,

                                                                   Kochi-682 018)

                                          O R D E R

A  Rajesh, President.

          The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant is a house wife.  She is holding a savings bank account with the opposite party.   On 10-08-2010 through the agent  the complainant presented a cheque  bearing No. 270266 in Kalamassery branch of HDFC bank for collection of cash, which was declined  by the bank.  The cheque was  returned insisting to present the same for collection in the parental bank, the opposite party.   The complainant had to suffer serious mental agony and discomfort since she was in urgent need of money.  The opposite party promised and endorsed on the cheque  that cheques can be presented and collected  immediately on presentation at any branch of HDFC bank.   So the complainant caused a letter to the opposite party  on 10-08-2010 requesting to take appropriate action.  Since there was no response, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice dated 28-08-2010 demanding to pay Rs. 15,000/-  by way of compensation.  The opposite party sent a reply raising untenable contentions.  So the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation together with costs of the proceedings.

2.     The version of the opposite party is as follows:

The complainant presented the cheque for collection which means that the cheque has to be sent to the branch where the account is  held. But the complainant’s agent sought for withdrawal of cash from the account.  It was not possible   The opposite party received the letter dated 10-08-2010 to which the opposite party replied to by letter dated 16-08-2010.  The legal notice  also was replied to by the opposite party.   The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed for.

3.     The points that came up for consideration are as follows:

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of

  Rs. 15,000/- from the opposite party?

ii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay costs of the

    proceedings to the complainant?

4. Point No. i.   According to the complainant the opposite party promised to collect  cash immediately on presentation of any cheque from any of the branches of the HDFC bank, not supported.   The complainant stated that  on 10-08-2010 her agent presented a cheque to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-  at Kalamassery branch of HDFC bank which was declined.  On the contrary the opposite party maintains that since the  cheque submitted by the agent of the complainant was a collection cheque it should have been  sent to the parent bank for  encashment  which was not done.  

5. The complaint  has not produced the disputed cheque in this Forum to prove veracity.  It is to be noted  that Ext. B1 goes to show that the complainant withdrew Rs. 5,000/- from the ATM on the date of the purported issuance of the cheque, which would go to show that the complainant had not suffered any injury due to the supposed  encashment  of the cheque.  The complainant is liable to abide by the banking rules and regulations of banking  for the presentation of the cheque  and encashment on which she thoroughly failed.  In that view of the matter we are only to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party whereas they have appreciably adhered  to their duties.

6.  In the result, the complaint finding no redress whatsoever  is only to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26^th day of September 201

Forwarded/By Order,                                               Sd/- A Rajesh, President.

                                                                      Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member

                                                                 Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

                                                                                                               Senior Superintendent.

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

                             Ext.   A1     :         Lawyer notice dt. 28-08-2010

                                      A2     :         Copy of letter dt. 07-09-2010

Opposite party’s Exhibits :

                             Ext.   B1     :         Copy of statement from

18-03-2010    to 30-04-2012

                             B2     :         Copy of letter dt. 10-08-2010        

Depositions:

                               PW1            :         Treesa Vidyadharan