BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President,<br /> <br /> 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A.,LLB., Member,<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.4/2010<br /> Order dated this the 8th day of July 2010<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT/S <br /> <br /> Sri Anthony Steevan @ Krishna <br /> S/o Srinivasa, R/o Door No.186, <br /> 5th Main Road, Sugar Town, Mandya.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.K.M.Mahesha., Advocate)<br /> <br /> -Vs-<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY/S <br /> The Manager, <br /> Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., <br /> V.V.Road, Mandya.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.C.Chikkaraju., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Date of complaint 08.01.2010<br /> Date of service of notice to<br /> Opposite party 18.01.2010<br /> Date of order 08.07.2010<br /> Total Period 4 Months 20 days<br /> <br /> Result The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.73,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 15.10.2007 till payment with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Sri.Siddegowda,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1.This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party claiming Rs.73,000/- with interest. <br /> 2.The case of the Complainant is that he is the customer of the Opposite party Bank having S.B. Account No.5279 from last 10 years. The Complainant deposited on 08.10.2007, cheque No.400899 dated 06.09.2007 for Rs.73,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, V.V. Road, Mandya, issued to him by the Mysore Sugar Factory as loan from Provident Fund and the Opposite party Bank issued the counterfoil. As per the say of Opposite party Bank Official to come after one week, the Complainant went to the bank to draw the amount, but the bank authorities told him to come after some days. Again, he went to the bank to draw the amount, but the staff of the Opposite party informed, there is no amount in his account. Then, the Complainant approached the Manager of the Bank showing the counterfoil and requested to pay the amount and the Manager told to come after some days and he would enquire and see that amount is paid. After some days, the Complainant approached the Manager of the Bank to pay the amount and at that time, the Opposite party asked him to put his signature to a blank paper saying that Complainant does not know to write the petition and he would get typed and the amount would be paid and with the hope of getting the amount, the Complainant signed the paper. Thereafter, the Complainant was made to wander to the bank, but no amount was paid and therefore, the Complainant came to know that the amount of the cheque was mis-appropriated. The Complainant was put to monetary loss and mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party. Therefore, the Opposite party is liable to pay the amount of Rs.73,000/- with interest at 24% and also compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. In spite of legal notice dated 06.10.2009, the Opposite party has not replied. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. <br /> 3.The Complainant has filed I.A.I under Section 27(A) of C.P.Act, to condone the delay and after perusal to the affidavit, complaint has been admitted by condoning the delay.<br /> 4.The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the Complainant is the customer of the Opposite party Bank having S.B. Account. It has denied that on 08.10.2007, the Complainant presented the cheque bearing No.400899 of State Bank of Mysore, V.V.Road, Mandya for Rs.73,000/- for collection of the cheque amount and Complainant has received the challan and Complainant visited the bank and enquired. The Opposite party has denied other allegations made in the Complaint, even with regard to the issue of legal notice and deficiency in service. The Opposite party Bank has obtained bankers blanket policy from United India Insurance Company, Mandya and it covers the risk from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. The alleged cheque of State Bank of Mysore, Mandya for Rs.73,000/- was presented for collection by the Complainant, but the said amount is not realized to the bank account, hence the Opposite party Bank is not liable to pay the amount, there is no deficiency in service. If the Forum comes to the conclusion that the Complainant is entitled for claim amount, the Insurance Company may be directed to indemnify the claim amount. The Opposite party is not liable to pay any amount and compensation and Complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.<br /> 5.During trial, the Complainant is examined and he has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.6. The Opposite party is examined and has produced Ex.R.1 to R.6. <br /> 6.We have heard the both sides and perused the documents.<br /> 7.Now the points that arise for our considerations are:-<br /> 1.Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not paying the cheque amount of Rs.73,000/-?<br /> 2.Whether the Complainant is entitled to Rs.73,000/- with interest and compensation? <br /> 8.Our findings and reasons are as here under:-<br /> 9.POINT NO.1:- The grievance of the Complainant is that he had obtained loan of Provident Fund from Mysore Sugar Factory, Mandya whereas he is working and the loan cheque for Rs.73,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Mandya Branch dated 06.09.2007 was issued and he presented the said cheque on 08.10.2007 for collection to his S.B. account No.5279 in Opposite party Bank as he is a customer of the Opposite party Bank and the Opposite party issued the counterfoil, but the amount is not paid. Though, at one breath the Opposite party has denied the presentation of the cheque by the Complainant for collection and dragging on the Complainant to the bank several times, but at para-9 of the version, the Opposite party has admitted the presentation of the cheque for Rs.73,000/- bearing cheque No.400899 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, V.V.Road, Mandya. But, according to the Opposite party, the said amount is not realized to the bank account and hence, it is not liable to pay the amount to the Complainant and hence, there is no deficiency in service. The Complainant has produced the counter challan of the Opposite party Bank as per Ex.C.1 and it bears the S.B. account number of the Complainant, seal of the Bank with signature and the amount. But, in the affidavit, the Opposite party has gone to the extent of swearing that cheque was not presented by the Opposite party Bank for collection and has not been received the said amount to the Opposite party Bank and therefore, the Opposite party is liable to pay the said amount. There is no explanation to which bank, the Opposite party sent the said cheque of the Complainant for collection and what is the reply from that bank and no correspondence is produced. The Opposite party Bank Manager has gone to the extent of denying in the cross-examination that counter challan Ex.C.1 was issued by the Opposite party Bank and further deposed that the seal of the bank is created. So, the evidence of the Opposite party Manager is quite contrary to his affidavit and version and he has no regards for the truth. Admittedly, the amount is not paid to the Complainant and amount is not credited to his bank account as per Ex.C.3. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 the letter sent to have been given by the Complainant stating that on presentation of the cheque, the staff of the bank gave cash of Rs.23,000/- saying that the cheque amount would be credited to his account, but remaining Rs.50,000/- is not credited to his account and has requested to pay balance of Rs.50,000/-. But, the Complainant in his complaint clearly stated that after several visits to enquire about the cheque amount, Manager of the bank asked him to put signature to the paper saying that he does not know to write a petition and they would get typed the petition and he would enquire and see that cheque amount is paid, the Complainant with a hope of getting the amount, put his signature to empty paper. Though that allegation is denied in the version, but there is no plea in the version at all that the Complainant has received Rs.23,000/- on presentation of the cheque to the staff of the bank and gave a letter as per Ex.R.1, even the original letter is not produced. This type of transaction is unheard in the bank transaction and that letter Ex.R.1 is not proved according to law and that document Ex.R.1 cannot be looked into as there is no such defence taken in the version. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.3 the letter sent to have been issued to the Complainant to produce the documents with respect to the difference in the S.B. account of the Complainant. But, there is no mention in Ex.R.3 that the Complainant has received Rs.23,000/- from the staff at the time of presenting the cheque. Though, the Opposite party has produced Ex.R.4 & R.5 the correspondence with State Bank of Mysore, Mandya about the cheque of the Complainant but reply of Bank is not produced. No reason is offered. But, the Complainant has produced Ex.C.6 the account extract of Mysore Sugar Factory in State Bank of Mysore and on 09.10.2007 cheque bearing No.400899 issued to the Complainant was paid. Therefore, the evidence of the Complainant Ex.C.1 and the version and affidavit of the Opposite party clearly established that the Complainant presented the cheque for Rs.73,000/- for collection to his account in Opposite party Bank and Opposite party Bank issued the challan Ex.C.1. But, the cheque amount was not credited to Complainant account and the cheque amount has been mis-used by the Opposite party Bank Officials though said cheque is encashed from State Bank of Mysore, Mandya Branch and hence, non-payment of the cheque amount to the Complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative. <br /> 10. POINT NO.2:- In view of our finding on point no.1, the Complainant is entitled to the cheque amount of Rs.73,000/-. The Complainant has claimed interest at 24%, but considering the interest payable by the banks, it is reasonable to award interest at 9% p.a. from 15.10.2007 as the cheque was presented on 08.10.2007.<br /> 11. Further, the Complainant has sought for compensation for Rs.30,000/-. In view of the vehement and false defence taken by the Opposite party Manager to that of para – 9 of the version and affidavit and making the Complainant to wander to the bank, the Complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 12. The Opposite party has taken contention that he has obtained blanker insurance from United India Insurance Company under policy bearing No.072001/46/09/62 /0000003 from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 and if the Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant is entitled to the claim amount, the Forum may direct the Insurance Company to indemnify the claim amount. But, the insurance company is not a party to the proceedings and there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Insurance Company and the Opposite party is liable to pay the claim and the Opposite party can claim reimbursement of the same from the insurance company. Therefore, in the result, we proceed to pass the following order;<br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.73,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 15.10.2007 till payment with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 8th day of July 2010).<br /> <br /> <br /> (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />