SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

Filed on 16.11.2006

 The case of the complainants are as follows: -  The complainants 1 to 3 are joint account holders with the opposite party with the Account No. 11425. The 1^st  and the 2^nd complainants are husband and wife, and the 3^rd complainant is their son. The 1^st complainant, on 28th March 2006 submitted a cheque for an amount of Rs.12,500/-(Rupees twelve thousand five hundred only) in the name of the 2^nd complainant to be credited to the afore said account. The opposite party instead of crediting the cheque proceeds the same day credited the same to the said account only on 16^1h June 2006. For this the complainant had to visit the opposite party over and again. The complainant sustained untold mental agony and difficulties. Aggrieved by this the complainants approached this Forum for compensation amongst other relief.

2.  Notice was sent, and the opposite party appeared.  Version in detail was filed. The opposite party contends that the 2^nd and 3^rd complainants were not the joint account holders of the said account at the material time.  At the time of producing the cheque, the opposite party had impressed upon the 1^st complainant the practical difficulties of crediting the cheque proceeds to the said account as the 2^nd complainant was not its joint account holder. The 1^st  complainant requested the opposite party to keep the cheque in abeyance till the 2^nd complainant; his wife is included as the joint account holder in the said account. There after, for a considerable time there was no any useful response from the part of the 1^st  complainant. However on 15^th  June 2006 the cheque was presented for clearing and the proceeds therein was credited to the account of the 1^st  complainant.  The

1^st  complainant filed an application seeking inclusion of the 2^nd complainant as the joint account holder only on 31^st  October 2006. Thus, the delay in crediting the amount in the account is due to the default on the part of the complainant.  The 2^nd and 3^rd complainants are not the consumer of the opposite party at the material time, the opposite party submits. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.

 3. The 1^st complainant was examined as PW1, and the documents Exts. A1 to A2 were marked.  Ext. Al is the document from Life Insurance Corporation; A2 is the copy of the display from cheque file. On the side of the opposite party the manager of the opposite party was examined as RWl  and the documents Exts. B1 & B2 were marked.

                        4.  Taking into account the contentions of the parties,p the questions come up for

consideration  are:-

(1)  Whether  there is  delay in crediting the proceeds of the cheque in the

       complainants account?

(2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief sought for?

5. The 1^st  complainant concededly presented the cheque with the opposite party on 28^th  March 2006.   It is not in dispute that the proceeds of the cheque were credited to the complainants’ account on 16^th June 2006.  Even going by the version of the opposite party, there is a delay of 80 days in crediting the cheque amount to the complainant's account. We have perused the materials placed on record. It appears that the 2^nd complainant was not an account holder at the material time as contended by the opposite party. However, it is significant to note that the opposite party pointed out the practical difficulty for not able to credit the cheque amount to the complainants account is that the 2^nd complainant in whose name the cheque placed was not the joint account holder.  Again it is noteworthy that still as per the version of the opposite party himself, the cheque was cleared and the amount therein was credited to the account even before the 2^nd complainant was inducted as the joint account holder.  This aspect evidently imparts the invincible impression that the opposite party could have done similarly at an earlier stage with out causing any delay. We hold that there is laxity though slender on the part of the opposite party.  Needless to elaborate further. The complainant is entitled to compensation.

6. For the forgoing reasons, the opposite party is ordered to pay to the 1^st  complainant a compensation amount  of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) which would serve the purpose for the difficulties the complainant had to countenance.

            Resultantly, the complaint is allowed accordingly.    The parties are left to bear their own cost.

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of  June, 2009.

                                                                                                            Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:

                                                                                                            Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                      Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainants:-

PW1                -                       T.K.Balakrishna Kurup (Witness)

Ext.A1             -                       Letter dated 16.10.2007

Ext.A2             -                       Display from cheque file

Evidence of the opposite party:-

RW1                -                       K.Ajithkumar (Witness)

Ext.B1              -                       Specimen signatuare card (True copy)

Ext.B2              -                       Letter dated 31.10.2006 (True copy)

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                        By Order

                                                                                                            Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainants/Opposite party/S.F.

Typed by:-pr/-

Compared by:-