IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of October, 2009
Filed on 23.10.07
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.205/07
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.N.Madhavan Pillai, The Manager,
S/o Late Narayanan Nair, State Bank of Travancore,
R/a – “Deepthi, Karthikappally,
No.3, 80 Feet Road, Allappuzha District,
7th Main M.S.Nagar Post, Kerala.
Banasawadi Main Road, (By Adv. P.G.Sudheesh Babu)
Bangalore -560 043.
(By Adv.K.P.Nanda Kumar)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is as follows: - The complainant availed a loan from the Karthikapally Taluk Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Harippad. For the purpose of paying off the outstanding loan amount the complainant took a Demand Draft dated 16th April 2007 for an amount of Rs.19,700/ -(Rupees nineteen thousand seven hundred only) from the State Bank of Travancore, HRBR Layout, Bangalore, and despatch the same to the aforesaid Karthikapally Taluk Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Even after the expiry of considerable time, the complainant noticed that the said amount was not credited to the complainant's loan account. The complainant contacted the opposite party on manifold occasions over phone. The opposite party told the complainant there were a number of similar DDs pending clearance in the bank, and as such the complainant's cannot be considered as a special case. The complainant was constrained to take out a long tedious journey from Bangalore to Karthikapally to procure clearance of the DD in question. Besides, the complainant lost an amount of Rs.1,457/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) towards interest of the aforesaid loan amount. The complainant approached Banking Ombudsman, and the complainant was allowed an interest of Rs.13/- (Rupees thirteen only) for the delay the opposite party effected in clearing the DD. The opposite party committed deficiency of service. The complainant has undergone inexplicable mental agony. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. Notice was sent. The opposite party appeared before this Forum and filed version. The opposite party contends that Karthikapally Taluk Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., is responsible for the delay if any occasioned in the collection of the DD amount. According to the opposite party, in no way the opposite party can be held responsible for the alleged delay. The delay from 7th May 2007 to 15th May 2007 was not due to any slip-up on the part of the opposite party. In the instrument in question the code number of the issuing bank was confusing. As such, the opposite party had to find out the details of the issuing bank baking on other process which obviously caused the said delay. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint. The complainant had approached the Banking Ombudsman, and the Banking Ombudsman arrived on finding that there was a delay of one week and ordered to pay Rs.13/- (Rupees thirteen only) to the complainant as interest. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost, the opposite party asserts.
2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, the secretary of Karthikapally Taluk Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. was examined as PW2 and the manger of Alappuzha Dist. Cooperative Bank, Haripad Branch was examined as PW3, and the documents Exbts. Al to A9 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, save filing version no particular evidence was let in.
3. Keeping in mind the contentions of both the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party caused any delay for the encashment of the DD?
(b) Whether the complainant underwent monetary loss or mental agony in respect of the said delay?
(c) Compensation and cost?
4. Concededly, the complainant availed a DD, and the same was later sent up to the opposite party for collection of the amount. The key contention of the complainant is that the opposite party caused delay in the encashment of the said DD which caused monetary as well as mental woes to the complainant. In this backdrop, the immediate short question to be looked into is whether there took place any delay, in the said clearance of the DD in question. We perused the materials put on record by the parties. At the first blush itself, it is revealed that there was delay in the encashment of the DD. It is interesting to notice that though at the threshold of the version, the opposite party has disputed delay, at a later stage the opposite party comes clean that there was a delay in the clearance of the material DD. Strangely still, the opposite party is disinclined to own up its responsibility on attributing the same to the alleged perplexity as to the code number that figured in the instrument. It is worthy of notice that the Banking Ombudsman made a finding to the effect that there was a delay of one week, and on that basis the Banking Ombudsman directed the opposite party to pay an interest of the DD amount for the delay. However, the key contention of the opposite party is that if at all there is any delay the Banking Ombudsman has ordered to pay interest for the delay days. According to the opposite party, if the complainant is aggrieved by this order, the complainant ought to have resorted to some other remedy save for approaching this Forum. We anxiously perused the materials put on record by the parties. It appears that the opposite party has not raised any serious dispute with regard to the alleged delay put forth in the complaint. On a closer survey of the evidence let in, it is clearly revealed that there was unwarranted delay in the clearance of the instrument in question. Indisputably, the DD amount was for the purpose of closing the loan account of the complainant. Consequent to the immoderate delay caused by the opposite party, the complainant was constrained to pay additional interest to his loan. The complainant had to take a tedious trip from Bangalore to Karthikappally. Further, he was made to run from pillar to post to get the material instrument encashed. Indubitably, the complainant sustained mental as well as monetary woes. The complainant’s case stands well substantiated. Needless to say the opposite party has committed deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled to relief.
In what have been discussed herein above the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation, and further Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as cost. We are of the considered view that this will serve the very purpose. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
In this result the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2009.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - N.Madhavan Pillai (Witness)
PW2 - M.Sulekha (Witness)
PW3 - R.Chandra Kumar (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The original Cash receipt No.2450 dated, 29.5.07 for an amount of Ra.1,457/-
Ext.A2 series - The Train Tickets dated, 17.5.07 and 21.5.07 respectively (2 Nos.)
Ext. A3 - The Letter issued from the D.C.B Ltd., Alappuzha dated, 19.06.2007
Ext. A4 - The. Letter from the CARD Bank
Ext. A5 series - The Phone Bills (3 Nos.)
Ext. A6 - The copy of the Register from the CARD Bank
Ext. A7 - The copy of the Transfer Receipt dated, 24.4.07 for an amount of Rs.19,700/-
Ext. A8 - The copy of the Register from the DCB, Alappuzha
Ext. A9 - The copy of the Loan Ledger
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
