Karnataka

StateCommission

A/3111/2011

The Manager, Syndicate Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dhanpal, S/o. Ramrao Angadi - Opp.Party(s)

M.R. Shashidhar

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

 

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 3111/2011

 

The Manager Syndicate Bank Vidyanagar Branch Vidyanagar, Hubli 580021       (By Sri. M.R. Shashidhar)   V/s

….Appellant

1.  Dhanpal, S/o. Ramrao Angadi      R/at Near Amrut Talkies      Vidyanagar, Hubli 580021 2.  Smt. Rajbansi      W/o. Dhanpal Angadi      R/at at Near Amrut Talkies      Vidyanagar, Hubli 580021      Rep. by her Power of Attorney Holder      D.R. Angadi 3.  The Manager / Proprietor      The Professinal Courier      1st Floor, Gurukrupa      Near Pai Hotel, Bilappanavarnagar      Hubli 580029 (R1 & R2 By Smt. S. Bhavana)

..…Respondents

 

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The OP No.1 in C.C.No.46/2011 preferred this appeal against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the District Commission, Dharwad and submitted that complainant had filed a complaint before Dharwad District Commission alleging deficiency in service against this appellant for misplacing cheque tendered for realisation.  The complainant Nos. 1 and 2 are the husband wife who had account in OP No.1 bank have tendered a cheque for Rs.2,17,650/- on 12.02.2009 drawn on Shri Gurusiddeshwara Co-operative Bank for realisation.  After receipt of the said cheque this appellant had tendered for realisation through courier/R3, but, after lapse of 3 to 4 months this appellant wrote a letter to the complainant stating that the cheque was not realised due to mis-placement and they are making arrangements to trace out cheque and they would credit amount as soon as it was found, but, the complainant without considering their request filed complaint against this appellant alleging deficiency in service and prayed for cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. along with compensation.

2. After trial the District Commission allowed complaint directing this appellant/OP to pay Rs.2,17,650/- with 6% interest from 12.02.2009 till realiation along with Rs.1,000/- litigation costs against which the appellant is before this Commission.
3. Heard.  On going through the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal we noticed that the complainant Nos. 1 and 2 are account holders of appellant bank bearing S.B. A/c No.220/10751 and it is also not in dispute that the said complainant Nos. 1 and 2 have tendered cheque dated 12.02.2009 bearing No.057087 which was issued on Guru Siddeswara Bank Ltd., Madhura Plaza, Dajibanpeth, Hubli for Rs.2,17,650/- for collection, but, the said cheque was not realised and it was misplaced in the appellant bank, for which, complainant filed a complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service and prayed for cheque amount to be payable by appellant.  After trial District Commission allowed the complaint and directed appellant to pay above said amount for the reasons that complainants have lost their opportunity to exercise the provision under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 
4. It is admitted fact that cheque was lost in appellant’s bank.  We noticed here that the cheque issued on Guru Siddeswara Bank, Madhura plaza is a private cheque.  The complainants could have obtained a duplicate cheque for the same amount as per the advice made by the appellant bank.  It is noticed here that appellant bank had in their version have suggested complainants to take a duplicate cheque for the same amount which could be honoured and also instructed to stop payment with respect to the cheque which was lost.  When such being the case complainants could have obtained a duplicate cheque for the same amount subsequently, but, the complainants have not done so.  Instead of that complainants filed complaint alleging deficiency in service.  Of course, we agree there is deficiency in service on the part of appellant bank in losing cheque tendered by complainants for realisation.  OP is not liable to pay cheque amount to the complainants. As because the option is provided to obtain another cheque for the same amount from the third person who issued the cheque, directing appellant bank to pay cheque amount not justifiable.  The District Commission had failed to appreciate the defense taken by OP and failed to suggest the complainant to obtain duplicate/another cheque for the same amount from third person who has issued.  Hence, order passed by the District Commission requires to be modified.  We fix liability for losing the cheque which was tendered by complainant for realisation for which the OP bank is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.  Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as modified.
5. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the District Commission for disbursement to complainant/respondent.

 

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*