O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Case of the petitioner filed on 8..1..2009 is as follows: Petitioner on 10..10..2008 presented a Cheque, with vide No. 163458, Dtd: 25..4..2008, for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, drawn on the opposite party’s Bank, through State Bank of Travancore Monippally Branch. On 16..10..2008 the payee bank returned the Cheque with memo stating “out of date”. According to the petitioner he presented the Cheque within in time and the said Cheque reached the opposite party bank in time. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in dis- honouring the Cheque for a wrong reason is a clear deficiency in service. So he prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the amount covered by the Cheque with Rs. 11,250/- as interest from 16..10..2008. Petitioner also claims cost and compensation. -2- Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party dispute is not a “Consumer Dispute” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party further contented that the account holder of the Cheque was Skyways International and the account is inactive and is in debit balance. A Cheque with No. 163458 drawn on this account for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- came up for collection on 16..10..2008. The date of the Cheque was readable as 25..1..2008. Since the Cheque came up for collection after the expiry of six months from the date shown on face of the instrument it was returned with an endorsement “out of date”. According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, they prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether petition is maintainable or not? ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? iii) Relief and cost? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A6 document on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. -3- Point No. 1 Since the issue of maintainability was decided as per vide order in IA 404/09 the petition is found maintainable before this Forum. Point No. 2 Crux of the case of the petitioner is that a negotiable Instrument of the petitioner was returned by the opposite party, payees bank, with a wrong endorsement “out of date”. Petitioner produced a copy of the Cheque and its original. Copy of the Instrument produced is marked as Ext. A1. Copy of the dishonour memo produced is marked as Ext. A3. Ext. A1 instrument is dtd: 25..4..2008. Opposite party raised a contention that the date of the Cheque was readable only as 25..1..2008. Petitioner produced the original of A1 and we peruse the same. In our view the date of A1 is readable as 25..4..2008. From the face of Ext. A1 it can be seen that issuance of Ext. A3 is a clear deficiency in service. Other question to be decided is with regard to the quantum of loss sustained to the petitioner. Petitioner has a definite case that as a result of the act of opposite party he cannot able to redress his grevieance by filing a criminal complaint. So, he is entitled for the amount shown in the instrument ie. Rs. 3,00,000/-. In our view fora is only concerned in granting damages for the ‘deficiency in service’ committed by the opposite party. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove by examining the drawee of the Cheque to prove that much amount covered by the instrument was due from the drawee of Ext. A1. Furthermore their is no obstructions for the petitioner to file a civil suit for -4- recovery of the amount. Details of Statement of account of skyway International produced is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be see that their no sufficient amount during 1..10..2008 to 31..10..2008. Without saying definitely what had happened caused some inconvenience to the petitioner and act of opposite party is deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 3 In view of the finding in point No. 2 & 3. Petition is allowed in part. Opposite party is ordered to pay petitioner an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the travails caused to the petitioner. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner as cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of the order. If the order is not complied as ordered petitioner is entitled for 9% interest for the award amount. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner: Ext. A1: Copy of Cheque Dtd: 25..4..2008 Ext. A2: Copy of intimation Dtd: 10..10..2008 Ext. A3: Dishonour memo Dtd:16..10..2008 Ext. A4: Lawyers notice Dtd: 18..11..2008 Ext. A5: Copy of the Postal receipt Ext. A6: Copy of postal acknowledgement card. Documents for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Account statement of Skyways International from 1..10..2008 to 31..10..2008. By Order, Senior Superintendent
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
