KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:332/2005 JUDGMENT DATED.25..11..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, : APPELLANT Chavara Thekkumbhagam, Kollam. (By Adv: Sri.M. Nizamudeen) V. K. Purushothaman, S/o Junjuraman, Thenguvila Charuvil, Near St. Antony’s School, Koyivila P.O., Kollam. : RESPONDENT (By Adv: Sri.S.S.Rajeev) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party in OP:256/03 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants/Bank authorities are under orders to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the complaint and also to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he presented cheque bearing No:674725, dt:25..10..2002 drawn on SBT Nedungadi branch for collection at the opposite party branch of the bank. The date of presentation of the cheque was 10..12..2002. As no intimation was received by the drawer bank from the opposite party and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was given he issued lawyer notice on 26..2..2003 to the opposite party. A reply was received mentioning that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds on 24..12..2002, and that the cheque and the dishonoured memo has been lost in transit and that they have obtained another cheque for the same amount from the drawer and requested him to receive the cheque in place of the lost cheque. The complainant did not receive the same as it will adversely affect the interests of the complainant and the legal proceedings contemplated against the drawer. Hence the complaint is filed claiming Rs.15,000/- the cheque amount as he could not proceed against the drawer under Sec.138 NI Act. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the drawer bank mistakenly forwarded the cheque to the Chavara branch instead to Chavara Thekkumbhagam branch which is the opposite party branch. Thereafter the opposite party contacted the Nedungadi Branch and obtained a new cheque leaf dated:25..10..2002 and intimated the complainant to collect the cheque from the bank on 28..2..2003 and present it for collection. Instead of collecting the cheque the complainant issued the lawyer notice. It is the contention that the complainant has not suffered any loss. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 to P9 and Ext.D1. 5. We find that it is mentioned by PW1 in his cross-examination that the Manager of the opposite party/bank had came to his house and requested to receive the new cheque but he declined. It is submitted that there was sufficient time to present the new cheque received by the opposite party ie, Ext.D1 but the complainant did not opt for the same. The complainant could have presented the new cheque and proceeded with Sec.138 of NI Act in case the above cheque was dishonoured. It appears that under some mistaken impression the complainant has not received or presented the new cheque. We find that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties/appellants. There is no justification to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- with 9% interest. 6. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.8250/- has been deposited as pre requisite for filing appeal, Vide DD No:658631 dt:9..3..2005. The above DD will be returned to the appellant. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
