KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.323/11

JUDGMENT DATED 22.2.2012

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                              --  MEMBER

1.      The Branch Manager

South Indian Bank Ltd;

Ollukkara Branch, Thrissur.

2.      The Chairman,                                           --  APPELLANTS

South Indian Bank Ltd;

Ollukkara Branch, Thrissur.

              (By Adv.Williams)

                   Vs.

C.D.Johnson,

Chirayath House,                                                --  RESPONDENT

Mukkattukara.

  (By Adv.Jockin A.Pereira)

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/South Indian Bank in OP 6/97 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.  The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint and 6% from the date of the order of the Forum ie; 5.1.2011.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that he had taken a demand draft for Rs.25,000/- from the first opposite party Branch of the Bank at Thrissur in the name of Veerendrakumar, New Delhi as account payee.  The same was sent to  Veerendrakumar.   Subsequently, it was found that  somebody  else obtained the above DD and encashed the same.  It is alleged  that the loss of DD has taken place due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  He has sought for refund of the amount of DD and Rs.5000/- as compensation.

          3. On the other hand, the opposite parties have stated that the DD bearing No.675159 dated 12.8.96 for Rs.25,000/- in favour of one Veerendrakumar payable at New Delhi  Cannaught Place Branch of the second opposite party was issued.  On enquiries, it was found that the DD was collected by Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd; Chandni Chowk branch.  It was found that the payee of the Demand Draft viz; Veerendrakumar endorsed the DD in favour of M/s. Goel Trading Company who had accounts at Chandni Chowk Branch of Jammu & Kashmir Branch Ltd;  who in turn collected the instrument in the account of the said M/s. Goel Trading Company.  It is contended that once the Demand Draft is handed over to the complainant, the first opposite party has nothing to do it the same.  On 24.9.96, a letter was received from the complainant requesting for a duplicate DD in respect of DD No.575159 dated 12.8.96 for Rs.25,000/- in the name of Veerendrakumar stating that the original DD is not received by the so called Veerendrakumar.   As a duplicate cannot be issued without verifying  at the payee branch as to whether the DD has already been paid relying on the representation of the complainant the first opposite party sent a stoppayment advice to their New Delhi Cannaught place Branch.  It was found that the DD was already paid and the same was intimated to the complainant.  It is denied that there was any negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  It is also contended that the collecting Bank  as well as the Veeendrakumar ought to have been impleaded.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RWs 1 and 2 Exts. B1 to B9.  

5. PW1 has testified that he is a second hand tyre dealer and that the DD issued was with respect to the goods supplied by Mr.Veerendrakumar of Delhi. As the DD did not reach Veerendrakumar  he stopped supply of second hand tyres and the complainant had to stop business for a certain period.  Subsequently Veeredralumar died.  According to him, he had made enquiries at New Delhi.  He could not locate goel and  away company.  He has stated that there are unauthorized alterations in the DD and that the opposite parties have failed to notice the same.

          6. We find that Ext.B6  is the disputed impugned DD produced  by the opposite party.  RW2, Smt. N.J.Selin, the Asst. Manager of the opposite party branch at Thrissur has testified that the signature seen in the DD above her seal was affixed by her.  She has stated that the words written in Ext.B6 at the top   left hand side as “crossing cancel” led and the signature under the same was not affixed by her and that the signature is not her signature.  There is evident difference in the signature.  There is no seal also under the above signature.  Of-course, RW2 has stated that the seal is not required when cancelling the endorsement.  We find that   there are lines in red ink apparently drawn in an amateur manner.   As already noted above    there is markable difference in the signature although; an attempt is made to copy the signature of the right hand side.  Hence, we find that there was lapse on the part of the Cannaught Place Branch of the opposite party that paid the cash.  The opposite party have not initiated any criminal proceedings to locate the person who did the criminal activity.  In the circumstances, we find that  no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.   The opposite party will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 22.2.2012 the date of this order.

          7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 

          Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 M.K.ABDULLA SONA --  MEMBER