This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 15-03-11 in the presence of Sri K.Venkata Rao, advocate for complainant and of Sri M.V.Subba Rao, advocate for OP1, OP2 remained exparte, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:
O R D E R
PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite parties to pay Rs.70,000/- (loss of amount by complainant) and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and costs.
2. The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant is having savings account bearing No.7904 with 1st opposite party by The weDownload Manager">bank
and 2nd opposite party is regional office of 1st opposite party. The complainant purchased a flat No.404 in Fortune Heights Apartment in the name of his wife in the month of January, 2007 and he issued a blank cheque bearing No.066620 drawn at 1st opposite party and handed over the same to owner of said apartment by name Gogineni Pavan Kumar as collateral security towards cupboard work. Subsequently the cupboard work is completed and complainant settled the amount with G.Pavan Kumar and paid off. While settling the amount, the complainant asked to return the cheque issued to him. Then Mr.G.Pavan Kumar stated that the cheque was misplaced. Later on 19-09-09 one person by name J.Purnachandra Rao who is the friend of G.Pavan Kumar presented the said cheque bearing No.066620 in 1st opposite party’s bank and drawn an amount of Rs.70,000/- from complainant’s account. The complainant alleges that at the time of presentation of said non-MICR cheque, the non-MICR cheques are not in use by any bank and all the banks have stopped making transactions through non-MICR cheques. Moreover, the said cheque was also in a torn condition in its center. It is a well known fact to all that a torn cheque cannot be honoured. Also the said cheque is not a crossed one. The said cheque presented directly in 1st opposite party bank. The 1st opposite party has not taken minimum precautions and honoured the cheque with negligent manner, which amounted to deficiency of service. Hence, the complaint.
3. The 1st opposite party filed its version, which is brief as follows:
It is submitted by 1st opposite party that the complainant has referred certain alleged transactions transpired between the complainant and the said Gogineni Pavan Kumar. The complainant narrated certain facts as if there were some disputes between him and said Gogineni Pavan Kumar but the said Gogeneni Pavan Kumar was not made a party to the proceedings. There is no bar for presentation of non MICR cheques in the day to day business activities. Further more the cheque presented before this opposite party by one J.Purnachandra Rao dt.19-09-09 being bearer cheque bank can pass the said cheque ensuring the bearer’s identity. With due caution this opposite party has verified the identity of said J.Purnachandra Rao with his PAN card and thereafter the said cheque was passed for payment. As such there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties. The complainant was careless in issuing blank cheque to a third party. He is further careless in not informing ‘stop payment instructions’ to the bank. He himself was to be blamed for his miss deeds and unfortunately he is complaining against the bank, which is nothing but a fruitless by The weDownload Manager">exercise and liable to be dismissed.
4. The 2nd opposite party called absent. Hence, set exparte. The complainant and 1st opposite party have filed their respective affidavits. Ex.A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of complainant. Ex.B1 to B3 are marked on behalf of 1st opposite party.
5. Now the points for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINTS 1 & 2
The complainant issued a blank cheque bearing No.066620 to one Gogineni Pavan Kumar as a collateral security for cupboard work to his house. On completion of said cupboard work by Gogineni Pavan Kumar, the complainant settled the transaction by paying cash. At that time when he asked Gogineni Pavan Kumar to return the cheque issued by him, the said Gogineni Pavan Kumar stated that the cheque was misplaced. The complainant argued that since the blank cheque issued by him is a non MICR (magnetic ink character recognizer) cheque and the by The weDownload Manager">bank stopped transactions through those type of cheques, he did not give any ‘stop payment instructions’ to opposite party bank.
7. On 19-09-09, the complainant found that an amount of Rs.70,000/- is drawn from his account and enquired with the bank personnel and came to know that the amount was drawn by one Mr. J.Purnachandra Rao on presentation of above said cheque. The complainant noticed that the cheque presented was soiled, torn in the middle and joined with tape. The grievance of complainant is that how can the bank honour a non MICR cheque when the bank is not accepting non MICR and torn cheques?
8. The complainant did not place any document to ensure non-acceptance of non MICR cheques. The opposite party bank cleared in its version that there is no bar for presentation of non MICR cheques in day to day business activities. The Forum also verified in the internet about the acceptance status of non MICR cheque but could not find any traces. The opposite party took precautions while delivering the amount to Mr. J.Purnachandra Rao on checking his PAN card and on receiving the photo copy of the same.
10. On observing whole episode, it seems that the complainant when he came to know his cheque was misplaced he ought to have given ‘stop payment instruction’ to opposite party bank. The complainant himself should be responsible to his negligence. Therefore, the Forum opines that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 1st day of April, 2011.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No oral evidence is adduced on either side
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | - | Copy of statement of account of complainant |
A2 | 19-09-09 | Copy of cheque bearing No.066620 |
A3 | 30-10-09 | Office copy of legal notice |
A4 | 12-11-09 | Reply legal notice got issued by opposite parties |
A5 | - | Refused notice issued to G.Pavan Kumar |
A6 | - | Acknowledgements of opposite parties (2 in number) |
For 1st Opposite party:
B1 | 19-09-09 | Copy of cheque bearing No.066620 |
B2 | - | Copy of PAN card of Mr.Jampani Purnachandra Rao |
B3 | - | Account copy of complainant |
PRESIDENT
