IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of April, 2009
Filed on 14.11.2006
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.249/06
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.T.K.Balakrishna Kurup, The Chief manager,
Proprietor, Ramco T.V.Centre, Indian Overseas Bank,
Ramco Agencies, Mavelikkara.
Mavelikkara. (By Adv.Premalatha)
(By Adv.Preethamani.K.P)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows: - The complainant is running electronic business. He was enjoying OD facility from the opposite party. The complainant on 31st December 2005 issued a cheque dated bearing No.74352 for Rs.55295/-(Rupees fifty five thousand two hundred ninety five only) to ‘Sharp India Ltd, Ernakulam’. When the said cheque was sent for clearance, the opposite party did not honor the cheque citing the reason of insufficient fund. The opposite party acted unlawfully. The complainant had to incur an additional expense of Rs.8368/-(Rupees eight thousand three hundred sixty eight only). The complainant caused to send a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party. The opposite party's response was unsound. The complainant sustained inexplicable mental agony and harassment. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation and other relief.
1. On sending notice the opposite party turned up and filed version. The opposite party contended that at the material time, there was no ‘over draft facility’ in favor of the complainant. The complainant was allowed only a cash credit facility. That too was in force only up to 27th March 2003. When the opposite party received the cheque bearing No.74352 for Rs.55295/-(Rupees fifty five thousand two hundred ninety five only) favoring ‘Sharp India Ltd, Ernakulam’ on 4th January 2005, there was no sufficient amount available in the complainants account to honor the said cheque. Over and above, the cheque was not properly drawn and there were lot of unauthenticated corrections in the said cheque. The intention of the complainant is to make illegal enrichment, the opposite party contended. The opposite party has not committed any service deficiency. The complaint is only liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
2. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents Exbts Al to A6 were marked. Exht A1 is the Pass Book, A2 is the copy of the cheque, A3 is the cheque return memo, A4 is the debit note, A5 is the lawyer's notice issued to the opposite party and A6 is the reply to the said notice. On the side of the opposite party the Senior Manager of the opposite party was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbts Bl to B3 were marked. Exbt B1 is the copy of the Credit Facility Certificate, B2 is the copy of its particulars and B3 is the copy of the statement of account.
3. Considering the contentions of the complainant and the opposite party, the questions come up before us for consideration are :-
(1) whether the opposite party was bound to honor the afore said cheque? (2) is there any deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant?
4. The opposite party vehemently contends that at the material time the complainant
was not enjoying the cash credit facility. More over, the said cheque was not promptly drawn. There were several corrections which are not duly endorsed. We meticulously went through the materials available on record. On even a closer scrutiny of the Exbt A3 cheque return memo. The reason cited for the dishonor of the said cheque is insufficient fund. Nothing more is there that suggests the correction of the cheque or other wise in A3. The contention of the opposite party as to the correction of the cheque has nothing to do with its dishonor. Now what we need to see is if the cash credit facility was in force when the cheque in issue reached therein for clearance. On a perusal of the Exbt A1 pass book, it is visible that the complainant was allowed by the opposite party to have the said facility before, and even after the dishonor of the material cheque. Thus, in our view, there is no substance in the said contention of the opposite party as to the continuance of the cash credit facility at the material time. Needless to say the service of the opposite party is deficient. With the result, the complainant has to incur Rs.8368/-(Rupees eight thousand three hundred and sixty eight only). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the complainant is entitled to relief for the same.
5. In view of the facts and findings herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8368/-(Rupees eight thousand three hundred and sixty eight only) which the complainant had to give out additionally. The opposite party is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) for the mental agony he sustained. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days on receipt of this order.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April 2009.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - T.K.Balakrishna Kurup (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Pass Book
Ext. A2 - Copy of the Cheque
Ext. A3 - The Cheque Return Memo
Ext. A4 - Debit Note
Ext. A5 - Lawyer’s Notice to the opposite party
Ext. A6 - Reply Notice, dated, 27.01.06
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - K.Ajithkumar (Witness)
Ext. B1 - Copy of the Credit Facility Certificate
Ext. B2 - Copy of the Particulars of Facilities
Ext. B3 - Copy of the Statement of Account
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
