IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday, the 31st   day of  July, 2009

Filed on 6.9.2008

Present

      1.   Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)

2.   Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)

3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

CC/No. 95/2008

 between

 Complainant:-                                                                        Opposite parties:-

1.  Sheena.T., W/o Premlal                                           1.         The Federal Bank Ltd. 

     Ashari Parambil, Neerkkunnam                                            Ambalappuzha Branch 

     Vandanam P.O., Alappuzha                                     Alappuzha District

                                                                                                Represented by its

2.  Sri. Premal       -do-        -do-                                             Branch Manager

     (By Adv. C.S. Hemalal)                                                       (By Adv. C. Parameswaran)

2.                  Central Bank of  India   ,

H.N. 79, Badarpur, New Delhi

3.                  The Postmaster, Alappuzha

 Collectorate Post Office

            Alappuzha

O R D E R

SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

             The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows: - The 1^st  complainant, on 23^rd July 2007 presented a cheque for collection through the account which she was maintaining with the 1^st  opposite party’s  Bank.  The said cheque bearing No. 51720 for an amount of Rs.25000/-(twenty five thousand) was issued to her by one Mr. Pushparaj who drew the said cheque from the 2^nd opposite party’s Bank. Notwithstanding the cheque being produced on 23^rd July 2007, the complainant could receive the proceeds of the cheque only on expiry of a prolonged period of 263 days. The 2^nd complainant is the husband of the 1^st  complainant who is running bus service. It was for the purpose of remitting the tax with regard to the said bus, the complainants borrowed the said amount of Rs.25000/-(twenty five thousand) from Pushparaj. For the delay the opposite parties caused in paying the cheque amount the bus service of the complainant came to halt for a long period. On this count, the complainant sustained heavy loss. The complainant visited the 1^st  opposite party time and again. The complainants effected repeated correspondence with the opposite party as to the delay of the said cheque being encashed. The complainants were made to wait endlessly till 263 days to take delivery of the cheque amount. The opposite parties caused deficiency of service to the complainant. The complainants sustained huge monetary loss. They suffered immeasurable mental agony as well. Got aggrieved on this, the complainants approached this Forum praying for compensation and other relief.

2. Notices were sent. The opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the 1st opposite party is that on the very date of the cheque being presented, the same was forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party. But there was no any useful response from the 2^nd opposite party for a considerable time. The 1^st opposite party in no time contacted the 2^nd  opposite party over telephone and through letters.  The said efforts of the 1^st  opposite party yielded no result. The DGM of the Planning Department of the first opposite party got in touch with the Regional Manager of the 2^nd opposite party followed by the 1^st  opposite party officials took up the matter with the C& MD of the 2^nd opposite party. Pursuant to the all-out efforts taken out by the 1^st  opposite party, ultimately on 11^th  April 2008, the cheque amount was received from the 2^nd opposite party. As such delay if any caused is not for the acts or omission by the 1^st  opposite party, the 1^st  opposite party asserts.  According to the 1^st  opposite party, the 2^nd complainant is not a consumer to the 1^st  opposite party.  The cheque amount was for using in commercial activity. On that score, the 1^st  complainant is not a consumer as well. The complainant is only to be dismissed. The 2^nd opposite party contends that instantaneously on receipt of the cheque forwarded by the 1^st  opposite party, a draft for an amount of 24,900/- (Rupees twenty four thousand nine hundred only) was prepared after deducting the service charge and sent through M/s. Economical Courier. On receiving information from the 1^st  opposite party with respect to the non-receipt of the said DD, the 2^nd opposite party prepared a duplicate one and sent the same to the 1^st  opposite party.  The said draft was lost in transit. The issue of non receipt was not brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party either by the complainant or the 1^st  opposite party in time.  Thus the 2^nd opposite party submits that delay if any caused, they cannot be held liable. The complainant has not proved any loss sustained by her. The complaint is only to be dismissed.

3.  The complainants filed proof affidavit and  the documents Ext. A1 to A8 were marked.  Ext. A1 is the document with regard to the tax payment of the complainant’s vehicle. A2 is the copy of the letter issued to the opposite party by the complainant. A3 is the postal receipts and A4 is the acknowledgement card,  A5 is the letter from the 1^st opposite party to the complainant, A6 is the copy of the statement of account, A7 is the copy of the letter the complainant issued to the postal superintendent and A8 is the acknowledgement from the post office. The opposite party did not make it a point to mount the box to give evidence, but documents Exts.B1 and  B2 were marked subject to objection.

                        4.    Keeping   in   view   the   contentions   of   the   parties   the  questions arise for consideration are:-   

(a) Whether the  delay caused if any was due to the negligence of the opposite   parties?

(b) Whether  the complainants are entitled to the relief sought for?

5. Concededly, the 1^st  complainant could receive the cheque amount on expiry of 263 days. Needless to, say the complainant had to wait endlessly for an unreasonable time. It appears that the 1⁵¹ and the 2^nd opposite parties blame each other. The 1^st  and the 2^nd opposite parties are service providers to the 1^st  complainant and as such the contention to the effect that the first complainant is not a consumer will not hold water.  At the same time, we are also of the view that the 2^nd complainant is not a consumer to the opposite parties. However, the said aspect is of no consequence with regard to the contention of the opposite parties that on that score the complaint would not stand.  We have gone through the materials put on record by the parties. At the first blush itself, it is revealed that there is an unreasonable delay of 263 days in disbursing the cheque amount. It may be on one reason or the other.  The opposite parties are not expected to marshal reasons or ready excuses. They are supposed to take highest degree of care, control and command over each and every act they commit throughout the process and procedure of their service till its successful completion.   In this backdrop, we are of the considered view the opposite parties in the instant case cannot be heard of dishing out lame excuses or fragile reasons for the failure of service. It goes without saying that the service rendered by the opposite party is deficient. We hold that the 1^st  complainant is entitled to the compensation for the mental agony and harassment she sustained at the hands of the opposite party.  The complainant had to run from pillar to post to receive the money they are entitled to.  However, it is observed that the complainants’ failure to remit the tax with regard to their bus or consequent loss cannot be linked with the service deficiency occasioned by the opposite parties.

 6.   For the reasons elaborated herein above, the 1^st  and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay to the 1^st  complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation for the agony and harassment she suffered at the hands of the opposite parties.  The said opposite parties shall1 equally comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order. We must observe that if the 1^st opposite party has any grievance against the 2^nd opposite party, the former is at liberty to pursue the remedy available in law and vice versa.   

In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly.  The parties shall bear their own cost.

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of July, 2009.

                                                                                                Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:

                                                                                                Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1             -           Tax payment of the complainant’s vehicle

Ext.a2              -           Copy of the letter issued to the opposite party by the complainant

Ext.A3             -           Postal receipts

Ext.a4              -           Acknowledgment card

Ext.A5             -           Letter from the 1^st opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A6             -           Copy of the statement of account

Ext.A7             -           Copy of the letter the complainant issued to the Postal

                                        Superintendent

Ext.A8             -           Acknowledgement from the post office

Evidence of the opposite parties:-         

Ext.B1                          -                       Sender copy of Economical Courier

Ext.B2                          -                       Certified extract of the A/c No.1107451809

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                        By Order

                                                                                                            Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainants/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by :-pr/-

Compared by:-