JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/Bank of India in OP No. 139/04 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% from 12-07-2004 and also to pay Rs. 450/- as costs.

          2.          It is the case of the complainant that his friend one Subramanyan from Saudi Arabia had sent him a cheque for Rs. 25,000/- for the treatment of his aunt who was admitted at Amritha Hospital, Ernakulam.  The same was presented before the opposite party bank; and from the next day onwards he used to go to the bank and enquire about the collection of the amount from South Indian Bank, Thrissur the drawee bank.  He even went to the drawee bank at Thrissur and enquired.  They have told him that the amount has been realized by the opposite party bank.    The staff of the opposite party bank used to insult him whenever he enquired regarding the encashment of the cheque.  Subsequently he came to know that the amount had reached the bank on 19-05-2004 itself.  He has alleged deficiency in service and claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

          3.          The opposite parties have filed version to the effect that the amount of Rs. 24,875/- was credited in the SB Account of the petitioner on 19-05-2004 itself and the same was withdrawn by the complainant.  It is denied that he was insulted by the bank’s staff whenever he made enquiries.  It is pointed out that there is no allegation of misappropriation.  It is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

          4.          PW1 complainant has deposed that he had gone to the bank for withdrawing the amount on 20-05-2004 and 22-05-2004.  He has also given a letter dated 22-05-2004.  Subsequently as advised by Mr. Subramaniyan, he went to the South Indian Bank, Thrissur and came to know that the amount has been accounted in his account.  Subsequently it is seen that on 19/05 itself the cheque amount has been credited in his account.  PWs 1 and 2 are the witnesses who have supported the version of the complainant.

5.          RW1 the Manager of the opposite party bank branch has admitted that the amount was credited in the SB account of the petitioner on 19-05-2004 itself.  He has denied that the complainant had come to the bank for the purpose of withdrawal of the amount.  It is alleged that he has made a loan application but the same was refused for valid reasons and to wreak vengeance, the present complaint has been filed. 

          6.          We find that the above case of denial of the loan raised by the opposite party in evidence is not mentioned in the version filed.  Hence the above contention cannot be considered.

          7.          It was contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the complainant ought to have produced the withdrawal slips that he allegedly presented at the bank.  PW1 has testified that he had torn away the above withdrawal slips.  We find that there is nothing unnatural in the action of the complainant in this regard as at the time he had no reason to disbelieve the statement of the staff of the opposite party that the cheque has not been encashed.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum in the appreciation of evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and RW1.  In the circumstances, we find that there is no reason for interference in the order of the Forum.  We find that the amount of compensation and costs ordered is only reasonable.

 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently.

                                                JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

Sr.