Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/343/2011

State Bank of India, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohamed Sadruddin & 2 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE         HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI        PRESIDENT

                        THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER

                          F.A.343/2011

[Against the Order in  C.C No. 60/2009 dated 15.12.2010  on the file of the DCDRF,Cuddalore]

 

 

Dated this the  11^TH  day of FEBRuary, 2015

 

The Branch Manager

State Bank of India

Chetty Street Panruti

Cuddalore District                                ..   Appellant/1^st opp.party

                                          Vs

Mohammed Sathurdhin

S/o Mohamed Ibrahim

56, Cuddalore Road,

Panruti

Cuddalore District          

 

Mohamed Sathurdhin

rep.by his POA M. Nizamudeen

Secretary Cuddalore District

Consumer Protection Council

Cuddalore                                          ..Respondents1,2/complainants

 

Branch Manager

Union Bank of India

Dindigul                                             ..Respondent 3/2^nd opp.party

 

Counsel for the Appellant/1^st opp.party      : M/s S.Natarajan

Counsel for the Respondent1 &2/complainants   : Mr.V.Balaji

3^rd Respondent                                           : called absent        

 

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 28.1.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

 

 

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         This appeal is filed by the Appellant/1^st opposite party against the order of the District Forum in CC. 60/2009 dated 15.12.2010 allowing the complaint.

 

2.         The case of the complainant is that, he deposited a cheque drawn on the 2^nd opposite party bank for Rs. 80,000/-  dated 6.6.2008 in his account on 4.12.2008 with the 1^st opposite party bank. When the complainant enquired with the 1^st opposite party about the cheque to withdraw the amount, he was informed by the 1^st opposite party that the cheque had been sent to 2^nd opposite party Bank at Dindigul and the amount would be credited in his account on receipt from the 2^nd opposite party bank. Inspite of contacting the 1^st opposite party several times neither the amount was credited nor the cheque was returned. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence the appeal

 

3.          According to the 1^st opposite party,  the complainant presented the cheque drawn on the 2^nd opposite party bank on 4.12.2008 and the cheque was sent for collection to the 2^nd opposite party through their bank at Dindigul viz., the State Bank of India, Dindigul. The State Bank of India, Dindigul sent a communication dated 9.2.2009 i.e., after about two months, stating that the  cover said to contain the cheque was received by them on 6.12.2008 which was empty and without any contents. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

4.         The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and awarded compensation.

 

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 1^st opposite party has preferred this appeal.  

 

6.       Admittedly the complainant /1^st Respondent has deposited the cheque for Rs. 80,000/- dated 6.6.2008  drawn on the  2^nd opposite party bank,  with the 1^st opposite party bank and admittedly the amount was neither credited in the account of the complainant nor the cheque was returned to the complainant.

 

7.     It is contended by the 1^st opposite party/appellant that the cheque was sent for collection to the 2^nd opposite party through their Branch (State Bank of India) at Dindigul and that after about two months,  the State Bank of India, Dindigul sent a communication to the 1^st opposite party stating that the cover received was empty, without any contents. The 1^st opposite party simply disowned their responsibility and liability.

 

8.      It is patently evident that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for the negligence and deficiency in service on their part leading to the loss of cheque and their irresponsiveness in not taking follow up steps to solve the problem.

 

9.       It is further contended by the 1^st opposite party that their branch (State Bank of India) at Dindigul is a necessary party in the complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  It is pertinent to note that the 1^st opposite party and the bank at Dindigul are one and the same bank viz., State Bank of India. It is further contended that on enquiry, they came to know that there was no sufficient fund in the complainant’s account with the 2^nd opposite party to honour the cheque and had the cheque not been lost and forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party bank, they would have returned the cheque. This contention is without any substance and is quite untenable.

10.         There are no materials placed before us regarding the present status and we cannot accept the hypothetical contentions.

 

 

 

11.      There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

           In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

           No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

J. JAYARAM                                                             R.REGUPATHI  

 JUDICIAL MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT