BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER
WARANGAL
Present: Sri Sri AND
Monday the 16th June, 2008
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 79/2007
Between:
K.Subhash S/Age: 27 yrs., R/o.H.No.1-7-894,
Balajinagar, Hunter Road,
Hanamkonda,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. The Manager,
2. The Managing Director,
House Lower ,
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. Y.Shyam Sunder Reddy, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri. Jandhyam Sudhakar, Advocate
: ORDER ::
Sri
This is a complaint filed by the complainant i.e.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the 01. In this case the complainant version is that, one Sri The complainant gave complaint on 08-03-2007 through fax to opposite party No.1 but no reply was issued, thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 14-03-2007 to opposite parties 1 & 2 demanding to payment of cheque. On 29-03-2007 on behalf on opposite parties replied they denying allegations of the legal notice gave legal notice. So thereafter the complainant filed this case for awarding an amount of Rs.2
02. The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed Written Versions stating that, the complainant has not deposited the cheque given by one of the amount due under the cheque and further the opposite party No.1 denied that, they have retained the cheque deposited by the complainant in his bank and further the opposite party stated that the complainant he himself retained the cheque with him and he created acknowledgement from the bank and further they denied the allegations mentioned in legal notice by the complainant and finally the opposite parties have stated that since there is no deficiency of service on their part they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
03. The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.A-01 to A-11. On behalf of opposite parties Sri A.Sreedhar filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked.
04. Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to grant an amount of Rs.2
05. Arguments advanced from complainant side and no arguments advanced from opposite party side, even though this Forum has granted a conditional order by way of saying that, the opposite party Advocate has to argue the matter on the next date of hearing or otherwise this Forum posted this case for orders but the opposite party side Advocate neither attended before this Forum nor argued the matter then passed the matter for orders.
After gone through the material placed before this Forum, our answer is like this. Here on the basis of Ex.A-1 an acknowledgement i.e. cheque deposit receipt issued by H.D.F.C. Bank, it shows that the H.D.F.C. Bank after receiving the cheque from the complainant itself, they have issued the Ex.A-1 to the complainant. After some time the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- not cleared in the account of the complainant in the H.D.F.C. Bank i.e. from Bangalore he got doubt and he verified number of times and he asked the bank officials, but they gave vague reply and subsequently he enquired with the bank he came to know that, the cheque was not sent to the Bangalore and no action has taken by the opposite party No.1 and from the date of cheque i.e. 25-03-2006 not positive action taken by the opposite party No.1, which is lapsed on 29-09-2006 from that in the eye of law the cheque has no validity and negotiability, the cheque was deposited by the complainant in the opposite party No.1 on 24-08-2006, so after six months also the opposite party No.1 has not taken any action with regard to the said cheque i.e. statutory period of the said cheque on 20-09-2006 for the said cheque there has been no validity and negotiability. So in the presence of Ex.A-1 it is clear that the complainant has deposited the cheque for an amount of Rs.1
It is an admitted fact if there is no Ex.A-1 certainly we can accept with the version of opposite party No.1 that the complainant has not deposited the said cheque in opposite party No.1, but in the presence of Ex.A-1 it is clearly goes to show that the complainant has deposited the cheque for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and further Ex.A-2 it is also clearly goes to show that it is a copy of complaint dated 08-03-2007 sent by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 with regard to the cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-. For this also the opposite party No.1 has not taken any care and further Ex.A-3 & A-4 they are fax massage receipts given by the complainant i.e. dated 08-03-2007 and Ex.A-5 it is a legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 with regard to the facts of this case i.e. by way of saying that he has deposited a cheque bearing No.627789 given by one Sri Thereafter the cheque was retained by the opposite party No.1 in his bank itself without sending the same for Bangalore for collection of amount. For these the bank i.e. opposite party No.1 gave Exs.A-1, A-2 & A-5 those documents clearly goes to show that the complainant has time to time enquired with opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 has not taken any care of the cheque to the complainant, so in the presence of the opposite party No.1 it is clear that the bank has committed a blunt mistake not sending the same cheque for collection of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- of the complainant, so it comes under deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties when there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, certainly the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. To show that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties they have not filed any documentary proof so in the absence of the documentary proof by the opposite parties, it is clear cut that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to the conclusion that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Hence we answered this point accordingly in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties as the cheque was not sent by the opposite party No.1 for collection an amount of Rs.1POINT TO WHAT RELIEF:
-
The main point is decided in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties, this point is also decided in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties. In the result, this complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
A month’s time is granted to the opposite parties to compliance of the order).
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today i.e. 16th June, 2008).
Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF Chief Affidavit field by of Complainant Affidavit of OPs.1 & 2 filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALFOF COMPLAINANT
01. Ex.A-1 is the HDFC Bank Ltd., Voucher Cheque received subject to received, dated 24-05-2006.
02. Ex.A-2 is the letter to the Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank, Warangal, 08-03-2008.
03. Ex.A-3 is the Transaction Report Sri 04. Ex.A-5 is the Reply Notice, dated 14-03-2007.
05. Ex.A-6 is the Registered post receipts.
06. Ex.A-7 is the acknowledgement card.
07. Ex.A-8 is the Legal Notice, dated 29-03-2007.
08. Ex.A-9 is the Statement of Accounts, from 10-05-2006 to 09-08-06.
09. Ex.A-10 is the Statement of Accounts, from 10-05-2006 to 09-11-06.
10. Ex.A-11 is the Statement of Accounts, from 10-08-2006 to 09-11-06.
11. Ex.A-11 is the Statement of Accounts, from 10-08-2006 to 09-11-06.
ON BEHALF OF Opposite partIES
-- NIL --
