Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/1862

Basavaraju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara B ank - Opp.Party(s)

Vickramadithyan,

19 Nov 2008

ORDER


BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/1862

Basavaraju
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Canara B ank
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 19th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1862/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Basavaraju, Son of Late Kalaiah, Aged about 28 years, Residing at No. 281, 5th Cross, New Kavika Layout, Muniswara Temple Street, Bapujinagar, Bangalore – 560 026. Advocate (R. Vickramadithan) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Canara Bank, Byatarayanapura Branch, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore – 560 026. Represented by its Branch Manager. Advocate (K.S. Bharath Kumar) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- the cheque amount and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the S.B. Account Holder at OP Bank and he presented one cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn in the month of November 2007 for encashment in January 2008 to OP Bank. Thereafter he crosschecked with his account book. To his utter shock and surprise the said amount was not credited to his account. On enquiry he came to know that the said cheque has been lost in transit and OP is unable to trace the same. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He got issued the legal notice on 12.03.2008, again there was no response. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they did intimate the complainant about the loss of the said cheque in transit vide letter dated 28.01.2008. Complainant would have taken the duplicate cheque from the drawer, but no such steps are taken. In addition to that the said cheque dated 20.11.2007 has been dishonoured by the concerned Bank on the ground of insufficient funds. Even up to September 2008 the drawer of the cheque had not maintained the sufficient balance so as to honour the said cheque. Under such circumstances there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. On the receipt of the said cheque it was forwarded to Canara Bank, KGF Branch through courier by taking all necessary precautionary measures. Unfortunately it is lost in transit. When the other equally efficacious relief and remedy is available to the complainant to redress his grievance, he cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the S.B. Account Holder at OP Bank and he presented a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- issued in his favour by the drawer drawn on Corporation Bank, KGF Branch in the month of January 2008. When he checked his account book, to his utter shock and surprise the said amount was not credited to his account evenafter lapse of three weeks. On enquiry with the OP he came to know that the said cheque has been lost in transit and they are unable to trace it, they have given an endorsement on 28.01.2008. Of course in the version also the said fact is otherwise admitted. This is a standing example of deficiency in service. There is a carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP, that too for no fault of the complainant. 7. When OP did not heed to the demand and request of the complainant to pay the said cheque amount to him, he got issued the legal notice on 12.03.2008. The copy of the legal notice is produced. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that complainant would have sought for duplicate cheque, etc. It appears OP wants to save its skin out of sin. It is further contended by OP that the said cheque was forwarded to Canara Bank, KGF Branch through courier by taking all precautionary measures. When complainant says that the said cheque drawn on Corporation Bank, KGF Branch why it was sent to Canara Bank, KGF Branch is not known. In addition to that the said courier is not made as a party nor OP initiated any action against the said courier service alleging their negligence and carelessness. It appears OP wants to throw the blame on the said courier service. Here also we find the deficiency in service. 8. Of course OP has contended that the said cheque dated 20.11.2007 has been dishonoured on 21.11.2007 on the ground of insufficient funds. That fact is not otherwise denied by the complainant. But unless and until the said cheque is traced and found complainant is restrained from proceeding under the N.I. Act. It is the choice of the complainant either to proceed under N.I. Act or to get a duplicate cheque. OP cannot dictate the terms to the complainant in that regard. 9. We are satisfied that due to the hostile attitude of the OP complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. As the said cheque is dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and right up to September 2008 drawer did not maintain sufficient funds, we do not think that the complainant is entitled to recover the said cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. In our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- with regard to deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the complainant. The rights of the complainants are kept open to take suitable legal action against the drawer of the said cheque to redress his grievance. With these observations we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.