This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to issue a cheque book under the “any where cheque” scheme and to pay an amount of `25,000 as compensation with cost of this proceedings.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant is an SB account holder with Federal Bank, Thalassery. The Federal Bank has allowed the account holders to draw the amount from any of their branches. Since the complainant is residing at Kadannapally complainant applied for issuing a cheque book under the scheme “anywhere cheque” so as to make it convenient to withdraw money from his account from the Payyannur Branch of the Federal Bank.  Then opposite party issued a cheque book but when the complainant presented a cheque leaf before Federal Bank Payyannur it was dishonoured stating that It is not an “anywhere cheque”,  The cheque book was issued by the Thalassery branch misrepresenting the complainant that he can draw  amount from any of the branches of the Federal Bank. This is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing cheque book against the request of the complainant. All the complaints made by the complainant in this regard with the opposite party bank has not been considered Since complainant could not withdraw the amount from any other branch other than Thalassery branch he has suffered so much of inconvenience hardship and  mental agony. Hence this complaint.

 Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the allegations of complainant stating as follows: The complainant is a Savings Bank Account holder of this opposite party/Federal Bank, Thalassery branch. The allegation that complainant applied for the issuance of a cheque book under the scheme anywhere cheque is false. The complainant has requested this opposite party to issue a cheque book and this opposite party issued a cheque book. The complainant never asked this opposite party to issue cheque book under the scheme anywhere   cheque. This opposite party is bound to issue anywhere cheque only on specific demand of this party. This safe guard is taken by the bank for protecting the customers from becoming victims of fraud using anywhere cheque. It is a vexatious contention that the cheque book was issued misrepresenting the fact that he can draw amount from any of the branches of Federal Bank is also a vexatious contention. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. This opposite party has got ATM counters all over the state for conducting anywhere banking transaction. The complainant is not entitled for any remedy. Hence to dismiss this complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

               opposite   party?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as

       prayed in   the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1. Exts. A1 to A5 and Ext.X1.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          Admittedly complainant is an account holder of the opposite party/Federal Bank Thalasery branch. The allegation of the complaint is that he has applied for issuing a cheque book under the scheme “anywhere cheque” so as to make it convenient to withdraw money from his account from the nearby branch of opposite party in Payyannur. Opposite party issued a      cheque but when he presented cheque in Payyannur branch of opposite party/Federal  Bank the cheque was dishonoured on the ground that it was not anywhere cheque. On the other hand opposite party contended that the complainant never asked opposite party to issue cheque book under the scheme anywhere cheque. It is also contended that they are liable to issue anywhere cheque only on specific demand of the party.

          The only question that arise for consideration in the given case is whether the complainant is specifically demanded for cheque book under the scheme “anywhere cheque” or not. If the evidence brings out that complaint had applied for ‘anywhere cheque’          undoubtedly there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

PW1/Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit evidence in tune with his pleadings. DW1 on the side of opposite party also adduced affidavit evidence rebutting the evidence given by the complainant in accordance with the contentions that he has taken on filing the version itself. ExtA1 is the letter dated 4.4.2011 written by the complaint to opposite party raising he question of dishonour of cheque and his difficulties due to non issuance of anywhere cheque. Ext.A2 is the reply to A1 stating that they will issue such type cheques only if the customer specifically request for the same. The main contention of opposite party is that they did not issue anywhere cheque only on the reason that the complainant has not applied to opposite party to issue anywhere cheque.

Since opposite party has raised the above said contention the complainant has the burden to prove that he has applied for anywhere cheque before opposite party. Except the interested testimony of complaint there is nothing to prove that such an application with specific prayer to issue anywhere cheque has been filed before the opposite party. When the particular question put to the mouth of the complainant PW1 in the cross examination he has deposed thus “Federal Bank\p Anywhere cheque\p At]£ sImSp¯psh¶p ImWn¡phm³ tcJsbm¶pT Fsâ I¿nenÃ.”. It is true that complainant has the case that he has submitted the application in writing. But complainant is not able to show that it was recorded anywhere so. Since complainant failed to prove that the alleged application has been given before the opposite party to issue ‘anywhere cheque’ we are unable to come into conclusion that opposite party has committed any deficiency in service and found no other way except dismissing the complaint.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

                  Sd/-                       Sd/-                     Sd/-        

President              Member                Member

                           APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

 A1. Copy of the letter sent to OP

A2.Reply

A3. Copy of the petition sent to OP under RI Act.

A4. Reply

A5.Copy of the appeal petition sent to Regional Office of OP under

     RI Act.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

B1 (X1). Copy of the cheque book register maintained by OP

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties:

DW1.Paul Jose Mathew

                                                                   /forwarded by order/

          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Dispute  Redressal Forum, Kannur.