By. Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant has availed a loan from LIC and received cheque No.132483 drawn on opposite party for Rs.9,500/- when the complainant approached the bank for encashing the cheque. They refused to pay the amount and demanded production of identity card by the complainant. Next day even on production of identity card the opposite party refused to pay the cheque amount. There is unnecessary harassment on the side of the opposite party. The cheque is not a crossed one and it has to be encashed even in the absence of identification documents. Hence there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to encash the cheque No.132483 with 12% interest from the cheque date and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
2. The opposite party admits that the complainant has approached them with a cheque from LIC. Usually the LIC gives account payee cheques to their customers. But this cheque was not an account payee cheque. On contacting with LIC, the manager said that there was omission on their side and they would correct that on production of the cheque by the customer. The cheque was entrusted with the complainant for getting it endorsed as “account payee”. Instead of producing the cheque before LIC, the complainant filed this case. There is direction that cheque from LIC should be encashed only through account. There is problem of identification also. There is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party and they are ready to encash the cheque through the account. Hence they pray for the dismissal of the case.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite party was examined as OPW1, Manager of LIC, Battery branch was examined as OPW2. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. The matters to be decided are as follows:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.
5. Point No.1:- OPW1 admits that the cheque produced by the complainant was a bearer cheque. He explains that bearer cheque should be encashed to the bearer or to the person whose name is written on the cheque. Here this cheque was not encashed to the bearer. The reason stated by the opposite party for refusal to encash is that usually cheques given by LIC are
account payee cheque and on the cheque produced by complainant there was no such endorsement. Ext.B1 affirms that LIC usually endorse their cheques with the indication that they are crossed and account payee cheques. But here the bank has refused to encash a bearer cheque simply for the reason that the LIC has omitted to endorse it as account payee. The bank has not produced any written direction or MOU to show that all cheques from LIC should be collected through accounts. In the absence of such direction, the bank has discriminated one customer against another. The bank would have sent the cheque for getting the endorsement of LIC OPW1 admits that the LIC office is only 100 meters away from the opposite party bank. It is found that opposite party has caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence point No.1 is found against opposite party.
6. Point No.2 :- Though the complainant contents that the bank's refusal to encash the cheque delayed the purchase of Photostat machine for her livelihood. There is no evidence to show that. However, the cheque is encashed only as on order from this forum. So, she is entitled for a reasonable compensation for the delay.
Hence, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The opposite party is directed to give interest on the ordered amount at rate of 10% from the date of this order till payment.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 26th November 2011.
Date of Filing:27.05.2011.
