Date of Filing:16.01.2008<br /> Date of Order:30.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF JUNE 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: 161 OF 2008<br /> <br /> B. Ramachandra,<br /> S/o Late Bhadraiah,<br /> No.198, 11th Main, 50 feet road,<br /> Nagendra Block,<br /> Bangalore-560050. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> ING Vysya Bank,<br /> Srinivasa Nagar Branch,<br /> No.3/5, 10th Main Road, <br /> Srinivasnagar, <br /> Bangalore-560 050,<br /> Represented by its Branch Manager. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, on 9/2/2007 complainant had presented a cheque in opposite party Bank for Rs. 35,000/- . On 13/2/2007 cheque was returned. Complainant enquired about the above cheque with the opposite party Bank staff. He was informed that the cheque came to be dishonoured and the cheque was sent to his address. The complainant informed the opposite party that he has not received the cheque. Complainant is being a retired Bank employee requested the opposite party to get back the cheque which he had presented. The opposite party Bank did not bother. Complainant caused a legal notice. Opposite party did not reply at all. Complainant was residing in the mortgaged house. When he vacated the house the owner of the house has given the cheque being mortgaged amount. Opposite party did not make any efforts to secure the cheque. The complainant has lost his remedy U/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act against drawer of cheque. Therefore, the complainant requested that opposite party be directed to pay Rs.1,35,000/- with interest and damages.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and defence version has filed through Branch Manager. It is stated that, the dishonoured cheque was returned to the complainant at his legal address bearing No.47, 4th Cross, Kasturaba Nagar, Old Timber Road, Pipeline West, Mysore Road, Bangalore-26 vide courier sent on 13/2/2007. The complainant has not raised the issue for the last 10 months which exposes lack of bona fides, in fact cheque lapses after six months. Complainant ha not raised any issue with regard to non-return of cheque. It is always open to the complainant to seek remedy for recovery before Civil Court. There was neither negligence on the part of the opposite party Bank nor any deficiency of service. Opposite party submits that on their part they have delivered the dishonoured cheque to the complainant, complainant is not entitled for cheque amount or damages. Hence, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service <br /> on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay <br /> Rs.1,35,000/-?<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. Perused the complaint. It is an admitted case of the parties that, the complainant submitted a cheque for Rs.1,35,000/- to the opposite party Bank for collection and the cheque was dishonoured. The dishonoured cheque was sent by the opposite party through courier to the old address of the complainant. The complainant had given letter to the opposite party on 29/12/2006 intimating the change of address. The opposite party Bank had acknowledged the letter by writing a letter dated 5/1/2007 and the said letter of the opposite party has mentioned the new address of the complainant. The complainant has produced statement of the Bank. In this statement also the new address of the complainant has been shown, but unfortunately the opposite party Bank has sent dishonoured cheque to the old address of the complainant through courier dated 13/2/2007. Admittedly, the complainant had not received the courier sent by the opposite party. In spite of intimating the change of address the opposite party Bank has sent courier to the old address of the complainant and thereby the complainant was notable to receive the dishonoured cheque. This is clearly a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The learned advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant lost remedy of filing case U/sec.138 of N.I. Act against the drawer of the cheque. Therefore, he requested that Bank may be ordered to pay cheque amount of Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant. For this argument the learned advocate for the opposite party submits that the complainant has got other modes to recover the amount from the drawer of the cheque. He could have filed civil suit for recovery for even remedy U/Sec.138 of the N.I Act was not barred because, the complainant could have obtain endorsement from the Bank that the particular cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds on the basis of that endorsement he could have filed even complaint U/Sec.138 of N.I Act. Therefore, the complainant cannot claim sum of Rs.1,35,000/- from the opposite party Bank. The learned advocate for opposite party also filed a judgment of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore wherein, it is also observed that the complainant has got liberty to recover the amount from the person who had issued cheque through some other mode and this observation was made on the basis of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission. In the Similar set of facts and circumstances the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum granted compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. Though the judgment of the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not binding on this Forum, but the said judgments shall have to be looked into only for the purpose of maintaining consistency and parity of the judgments of equal and similar power exercising authority. The complainant admittedly has not put in to actual loss of Rs.1,35,000/- on account of non receipt of the dishonoured cheque from the opposite party Bank. But however he has been put to inconvenience and the opposite party Bank has failed to serve the customers properly. There is clear cut negligence on the part of the opposite party Bank in not sending the cheque in question to the complainant address as noted in the Bank records. On the facts of the case it is very clear that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. Therefore, for this deficiency of service the opposite party Bank shall have to be compensate suitably to the complainant. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met in awarding Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to Rs.1,000/- as costs of the present proceeding from the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the compensation amount carries interest at 10% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realization. <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 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2008.<br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />