Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/253/2014

ICICI BANK LTD., THE BRANCH MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M. CHAKRAVARTHY - Opp.Party(s)

SHIVAKUMAR AND SURESH

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE      THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI  PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER

                     Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                          MEMBER

                                                                                      F.A.NO. 253/2014

(Against order in  C.C. No.64/2011  

DCDRF, Nagapattinam Dated 10.10.2013)

 

Dated this the 8^th day of APRIL, 2015

 

The Branch Manager

ICICI Bank Limited

Mayiladuthurai                                       ..Appellant/1^st opposite party

 

                                           Vs

 

1.M.Chakravarthy

S/o Mahalingam,

No.51, Main Road,

Old Kuddalur post, Kuthalam Taluk

Mayiladuthurai via,

Nagapattinam District                             ..1^st Respondent/complainant

 

2. The Director,

Distance Education,

Annamalai University,

Chidambaram                                        ..2^nd Respondent/2^nd opp. party

 

Counsel for Appellant/1^st opp. party     : M/s Shivakumar & Suresh

Counsel for 1^st Respondent/complainant     : M/s K.M.Subramaniam

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent/2^nd opposite party : M/s S.Swaminathan

 

      The Appellant is the 1^st opposite party. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/1^st opp.party filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam in CC.No.64/2011 dated 10.10.2013.

 

             This  appeal coming  before us for  hearing  finally on 25.3.2015 upon  hearing  the  arguments  on both  side,   perusing  the  documents,

 lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Nagapattinam, this commission made the following order. 

                                          ORDER

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1.           The 1^st opposite party is the appellant.

2.        The complainant obtained a demand draft for Rs.4000/- in favour of the 2^nd opposite party from the 1^st opposite party on paying necessary charges for the purpose of his MBA course through the 1^st opposite party has sent the same and somehow it was not enchased by the 2^nd opposite party and when the complainant approached for the degree certificates, he came to know that the amount was not received by the 2^nd opposite party and thereby he had paid the amount once again with penalty of Rs.600/- and when approached the 1^st opposite party for the refund of Demand draft not properly responded evading and harrassed for production of required documents inspite of submitting the same and thereby the consumer complaint came to be filed for refund of Rs.4000/- with 18% interest, compensation and for cost.

3.   The 2^nd opposite party remained absent before the District Forum and all are by set exparte.

4.   On the basis of complaint and other materials and on the contention of written version by the 1^st opposite party admitting that they have not refunded the money for want of certain documents to be produced by the complainant, District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties directed to refund the amount of Rs.4000/- with 18% interest and also the penalty of Rs.600/- collected by the 2^nd opposite party with 18% p.a. interest from 14.11.2011 and Rs.25,000/-  each as compensation to the complainant for mental agony with cost of Rs.3000/-.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 1^st opposite party alone has come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without considering the materials of the 1^st opposite party and since the 2^nd opposite party misplaced the demand draft and it was not at all presented for encashment and when the complainant approached  for refund, they requested to produce the challan and he failed to produce the required documents by processing claim and therefore refund could not be made. The appellant discharged his duties as Bank Manager in dealing Public money and no deficiency in service on their part and before the legal aid authority in the enquiry, it is admitted that the demand draft amount could be refunded if all the required documents produced for the processing of refund and thereby the appeal to be allowed.

 

6.        We have heard both side arguments and given careful consideration in this matter by perusing the materials placed before us.

7.     It is admitted by the appellant/1^st opposite party that the complainant approached for refund of demand draft which was taken by him in favour of 2^nd opposite party which was not encashed by 2^nd opposite party due to their lapse and thereby the complainant is entitled for refund of demand draft is obvious. But the appellant contended for non-production of challan for the purchase of demand draft and other documents necessary, the demand draft amount was not refunded.  It is known fact in case of loss of demand draft or misplacement of the demand draft, on the request of person who had purchased the demand draft or received  the demand draft for the purpose of encashment by making request in writing for refund of money or to get fresh D.D along with necessary indemnity bond with details of demand draft furnished, the bank has to refund the Demand draft money or issue fresh demand draft after charging necessary fee for the same. In this case, the copy of indemnity bond filed by the complainant as Ex.A.4, would reveal that it was executed at the request of bank on the 100 rupees non-judicial stamp paper with details of demand draft number and date and duly attested by the witnesses and inspite of the same only for the simple reason for the non-production of challan and other details like Identity card, the amount was not refunded. The complainant has given a letter in writing request for demand draft as per Ex.A.4, series along with proof of identity and also with NOC from the 2^nd opposite party mentioning that the demand draft was not received or presented for payment or endorsed any other person and inspite of the same, the opposite party/appellant  not refunded the amount for the reason best known and even after  receiving a legal notice under Ex.A.5, no reply was given and only contention is that the complainant who had purchased the demand draft not produced original challan for the same. When the complainant had given all the details relating to the demand draft including D.D.Number, date, purchase details etc., and since because of non-production of challan alone, the appellant cannot shrink their responsibility by refusing the request when the particulars of challan are very well available with the bank, if they cared to verify with the transactions relating to the issuance of demand drafts on that particular date with bank records itself and thereby it is clear that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in non refunding the amount for the demand draft obtained by the complainant, which was not encashed and thereby the order of the District Forum in this regard as to be confirmed. As for as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the District Forum awarded by directing both the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each as compensation which we feel some what on the higher side for the refund of Rs.4000/-, awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to be payable, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the 2^nd opposite party has not come forward with any appeal against the same. We are of the view to reduce the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only by the 1^st opposite party and in other respects, the order of the District Forum to be confirmed.

                In the result, this appeal is allowed in part as against the appellant/1^st opposite party alone by reducing the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only and in other respects, confirming  the  order  of  the  District  Forum,  Nagapattinam  in

C.C.64/2011 dated 10.10.2013 against the 1^st opposite party/appellant in this appeal.

 

         No separate order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                           A.K.ANNAMALAI

 MEMBER                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER