Date of Filing:17.07.2007<br /> Date of Order: 31.03.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1483 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Geetha B.S,<br /> W/o M.K. Lokesh,<br /> R/at No.375, 11th Main,<br /> Manjunathnagar,<br /> W.O.C Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 010. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. ING VYSYA BANK LTD.,<br /> Represented by the<br /> Retail Regional Head,<br /> “HARA” Chamers,<br /> No.22, K.H. Road, (Double Road)<br /> Bangalore-560 027.<br /> <br /> 2. ING VYSYA BANK LTD.,<br /> A BODY Corporate,<br /> Branch at<br /> SJBSS Extension Branch,<br /> Rajajinagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 010. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant are that the complainant is a customer of ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,. On 10/5/2006 the complainant presented a cheque bearing No. 517518 dated 12/12/2006 to his orange account bearing No.183010031647 drawn on Indian Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the cheque was sent for clearance on 11/5/2007. The drawee bank is marked as document N0.1. The cheque was dishonoured and returned from Indian Bank. The opposite party No.2 did not return the dishonoured cheque along with endorsement assigning the reason for dishonour. The complainant further states that the cheque and the endorsement was recovered till 25/5/2007 and the complainant approached the opposite party to verify about those documents. She was informed about the return of the cheque on 11/5/2007 with an endorsement of “Account Closed” and she further states that she did not get satisfactory answer till 28/5/2007. She gave her representation in writing on 28/5/2007 and it was acknowledged on 29/5/2007. It was only on 1/6/2007 that the second opposite party informed the complainant that, the dishonoured cheque and endorsement had been dispatched through Professional Courier and it was lost in transit and therefore, it cannot be delivered to her. Thus the complainant feels both the opposite parties have failed in their duties. Hence, she prays for the following orders:-<br /> Due to deficiency in service her remedy is for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and frustration. <br /> 2. Both the parties have appeared and have filed their version, affidavit and written argument. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant is having an orange account with the opposite party No.2 and also admits that the above cheque was presented and it was dishonoured with an endorsement stating that the “account closed” and the same was returned to the complainant through courier No.PLR 1142 P 118 dated 13/5/2007 and during transit the same was lost by the Courier official. Hence, there is no deficiency in service by both the opposite parties. <br /> 3. The point for consideration is:-<br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite parties? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 4. The facts of the case are very simple. It is an admitted case of both the parties that, the complainant had deposited a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore on 10/5/2007. The cheque was returned by Indian Bank on 11/5/2007 for the reason that, the account was closed. It is an admitted case of the opposite party Bank that, the returned cheque was given to Professional Courier by their RCC Bangalore for delivering the same to the complainant. But unfortunately the cheque was not delivered to the complainant by the Professional Courier. It is also admitted fact that the Professional Courier had informed the Bank in writing that they have lost the cover in transit. All these facts are made clear by the opposite party by the letter dated 16/8/2007 addressed to the complainant Smt. Geetha. The opposite party has produced letter of Professional Courier dated 25/5/2007. By this letter also, it is clear that the consignment has been lost during the delivery time by the field staff and the Courier service expressed their extreme sorry for the inconvenience caused to the Bank and to the client. So as per the admitted facts of the case, it is very clear that the cheque which had been deposited by the complainant for collection did not reach to the complainant for taking further steps by her against the party who had issued the cheque. It has been argued by the complainant vehemently that, on account of non receipt of the dishonoured cheque, she has lost remedy to recover Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore, she was put to loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore, the complainant submitted that, on account of deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite party she has been put to loss and requested the Forum to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. No doubt it is true that the complainant could not receive the original cheque since the cheque had been lost during transit by the Professional Courier. The complainant is no way concerned with the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Professional Courier. It is the duty and obligation of the opposite party Bank to see that the cheque should reach to the complainant. But unfortunately, the cheque did not reach the complainant. Therefore, it amounts a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. Since there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Professional Courier Service. The complainant cannot take any action against the Professional Courier for loss of cheque during the transit. It is only the Bank had sent the cheque to the Courier Service to be delivered to the complainant and therefore, the Bank has to take legal action against the Professional Courier for non delivery of consignment to the complainant. The cheque was returned by the Indian Bank on the ground that the account was closed and to this effect a letter of Indian Bank has been produced by the opposite party. The complainant though not put to loss directly or actual loss on account of the loss of cheque, but she had lost remedy in filing complaint U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the drawer of cheque. The complainant is put to mental agony and tension and she has spent time and money in making enquiry and attending the Bank and making correspondence with the Bank several times. For all these inconvenience caused to the complainant she must be suitably compensated. The request of the complainant that she may be award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of cheque cannot be accepted. But in view of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank in not delivering the cheque to the complainant, she must be suitably compensated. On the facts and circumstances, grant of compensation of Rs.20,000/- would meet the ends of justice for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party Bank is one of the repudiated Bank it should have taken proper care and caution in delivering the cheque to the complainant. For the fault of Professional Courier Service, the complainant cannot be put into loss. For no fault of complainant she had suffered mental agony and inconvenience and lost the remedy of taking legal action against the drawer of the cheque. Therefore, the complainant needs to be compensated. Consumer Protection Act is a social legislation intended to safeguard the better interest of the consumers. The complainant being the customer of the opposite party Bank did not get the service of the Bank as expected by her or any other customer. Therefore, it is the duty of the opposite party Bank to compensate its customer for the lapse in duty and not delivering the cheque in question to the complainant. Every Bank displays the famous quotation of our father of nation M.K. Gandhi on their premises as under:-<br /> “A Consumer is the most important visitor in our premises. He is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him. He is not an interruption in our work. He is the purpose of it. He is not an outside on our business. He is a part of it. We are not doing him a favour by serving him. He is doing us a favour by giving us an opportunity to do so.” <br /> <br /> So in view of the above famous quotation, it becomes duty of the opposite party Bank to satisfy the customer by doing proper and careful service. In this case, the complainant needs to be compensated for the lapse on the part of the opposite party Bank. On the facts and circumstances, I feel grant of compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant will meet the ends of justice. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party Bank is directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The amount shall be sent to the complainant directly by way of D.D or cheque with intimation to this Forum. If the opposite party Bank fails to comply the order within 30 days in that case the amount carries interest at 10% p.a from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2008.<br /> Order accordingly <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />