Karnataka

Chikmagalur

CC/110/2016

Rajkumar Balagaara, N.R. Pura, Chikmagalur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Syndiacte Bank, Mudigere, Chikmagalur And Others - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Jun 2017

ORDER

District Consumer Forum,Hosmane Extension, Near IB, Chikmagalur-577 101
CAUSELIST
 
Complaint Case No. CC/110/2016
 
1. Rajkumar Balagaara, N.R. Pura, Chikmagalur
Chikmagalur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager, Syndiacte Bank, Mudigere, Chikmagalur And Others
Mudigere
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ravishankar PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. H. Manjula Mahesh MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Geetha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:In Person, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 20 Jun 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Complaint filed on: 22.11.2016

                                                                                                                             Complaint Disposed on:30.06.2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

COMPLAINT NO.110/2016

DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

:PRESENT:

 

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

 

 

 

 

COMPLAINANT:

Rajkumara Balagara

S/o Nagappa Balagara,

Aged about 36 years,

Assistant Teacher,

Government High School,

Gabgal Village & Post,

Baluru Hobli, Mudigere Taluk

Presently R/at Gouse Building,

Balehonnur, N.R.Pura Taluk,

Chikmagalur District.

 

(By In-person)

 

 

 

 

V/s

 

 

OPPONENT/S:

1. Branch Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Mudigere Branch,

Mudigere Taluk,

Chikmagalur District.

2. Branch Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Main Branch, I.G Road,

Chikmagalur-577100.

Chikmagalur Taluk & Dist.

3. Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Javali Branch, Javali,

Mudigere Taluk,

Chikmagalur District.

 

(OP By Sri/Smt. T.C.Shivashankara, Advocate)

By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,

 

 

:O R D E R:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service in not crediting the cheque amount of Rs.85,600/- to his S/B account, which was presented for realization. Hence, prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 3 to credit the said amount along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and inconvenience.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that:

        The complainant is working as a teacher at Government high school, Gabgal Village, Baluru Hobli, Mudigere Taluk and in order to fulfill his needs he had raised a loan from K.G.I.D. and loan was sanctioned. An amount of Rs.86,500/- was sent by K.G.I.D. through cheque No.181408. After receipt of the said cheque from K.G.I.D. the complainant presented it to Op No.1 bank for realization, but so far Op No.1 bank had not credited the said amount after realization. In this regard, complainant had enquired with respect to the non-credit of the said amount to his account, for which Op Nos.1 to 3 have not responded properly. Then, on 24.10.2016 complainant wrote a letter to realize the said amount immediately as it requires for his daily needs. But even after receipt of the said letter Op Nos.1 to 3 have not credited the said amount, instead of that have given reply stating that they have sent a cheque for realization through professional courier and they are waiting for realization and shown negligence in crediting the amount of Rs.85,600/-. Till today the Ops have not credited the said amount. Hence, Op Nos.1 to 3 rendered deficiency in service in not realizing an amount of Rs.85,600/-, due to non-realization of the said amount complainant suffered financial loss and inconvenience and without realizing the said amount he was forced to pay the installments towards loan. Hence, complainant filed this complaint and prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 3 to credit the said cheque amount along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.

3. After service of notice Op Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed version and contended that, it is true that cheque bearing No.181408 for Rs.85,600/- issued by K.G.I.D. was presented for collection through Op No.3 vide S/B account No.903/218/374 of the complainant on 06.10.2016. The said cheque was sent to the branch of this Op through professional courier. But it is false that they have shown negligence towards complainant.

        The cheque bearing No.181408 issued by K.G.I.D. has been sent through professional courier from Op No.1 bank to the branch of Op No.2, but the said professional courier had not delivered the said cheque to Op No.2 bank. At the request of the complainant the Op No.1 has requested the Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Chikmagalur to issue duplicate of the cheque in lieu of lost cheque. Accordingly, the duplicate cheque bearing No.181408 for Rs.85,600/- was issued from K.G.I.D., Chikmagalur, the said fact was informed to the complainant through their letter dated:07.12.2016. The 1st Op has collected the proceeds of the duplicate cheque and the amount of Rs.85,600/- was credited to the S/B account of the complainant at Op No.1 bank. The Op No.3 also credited sum of Rs.760/- towards interest for delayed collection of cheque as per rules in force. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of these Ops.

        Ops further contended that, these Ops are nationalized bank and governed by the RBI guidelines and as per the RBI guidelines these Ops have intimated the loss of the cheque and the fact was brought to the notice of the complainant and they have taken necessary steps by giving stop payment instructions to the State Bank of Mysore, Chikmagalur through their letter dated:27.10.2016. Further as per the RBI guidelines these Ops have paid the interest on the delayed collection amount. Hence, there is cause of action arose in the complaint and also no deficiency in service on the part of these Ops. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and Op Nos.1 to 3 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.

5.     Heard the arguments.

6.     In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

  1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
  2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

  1. Point No.1: Negative.  
  2. Point No.2: As per Order below. 

 

: R E A S O N S :

 

POINT NOs. 1 & 2:

8. The case of the complainant is that, he tendered cheque bearing No.181408 for an amount of Rs.85,600/- which was loan amount sanctioned by K.G.I.D. to his banker i.e., Op No.1 bank for realization on 06.10.2016. But the Op No.1 bank had not credited the amount inspite of repeated requests and demands made by complainant. Hence, alleges a deficiency in service and prays for realization of the said amount along with compensation for deficiency in service.

9. On contrary, Ops have taken a contention that, the cheque tendered for realization by complainant was sent to the banker who have issued a cheque through professional courier, but the said cheque was lost during transit. In this regard, they have obtained a duplicate cheque for the same amount and after receipt of the said duplicate cheque they have credited an amount of Rs.85,600/- to the account of the complainant. They also paid interest of Rs.760/- towards delayed realization of the cheque to the complainant’s account. Hence, submits no deficiency in service.

10.  On going through the documents produced by both complainant and Ops, we are of the opinion that of-course there is a delay in realization of the cheque of the complainant tendered for realization, but for that the Op Nos.1to 3 bank have paid interest of Rs.760/- as per the RBI guidelines. We found there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op Nos.1 to 3 in crediting the amount of Rs.85,600/- to the complainant after obtaining a duplicate cheque from Treasury at Chikmagalur. But the complainant had not explained these facts before this Forum and also failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Op Nos.1 to 3. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-  

 

: O R D E R :

 

  1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.
  2. Send free copies of this order to both the parties.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 30th day of June 2017).

 

                         

 (B.U.GEETHA)         (H. MANJULA)      (RAVISHANKAR)

     Member                    Member                 President

 

 

 

ANNEXURES

Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:

Ex.P.1              - Challan dtd:06.10.2016.

Ex.P.2              - Letter dtd:24.10.2016.

Ex.P.3              - Reply notice dtd:08.11.16.

Ex.P.4              - K.G.I.D loan sanction letter dtd:03.10.2016.

 

Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:

 

Ex.R.1              - Letter dtd:07.12.2016.

Ex.R.2              - Circular.

Ex.R.3              - Authorization letter.

 

 

Dated:30.06.2017                         President 

                                  District Consumer Forum,

                                                  Chikmagalur.            

 

 

 

RMA

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ravishankar]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. H. Manjula Mahesh]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MS. Geetha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.