HYDERABAD
F.A.No.118/2006 against C.D.No.84/2005 , Dist.Forum, Visakhapatnam.
Between
Korada Trinadha Rao, S/o.Ramu,. Aged 39 years,
R/o.D.No.31-8-26/2, Bangaramma Metta,
Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. … Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.Andhra Bank ,
Maharanipet Branch, Visakhapatnam.,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
2.Sri Visakha Grameena Bank , Paradi,
Represented by its Branch Manager. …. Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the appellant : M/s. Ramani Jonna
Counsel for the respondents : M/s. A.Krishnam Raju-R1
CORAM :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO , PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY , HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order : (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
******
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to set aside the dismissal order passed by the District Forum , Visakhapatnam in C.D.No.84/2005 dt.21.11.2005
The appellant herein is the complainant before District Forum. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to direct the opp.parties to pay Rs.3 lakhs towards the amount covered under the cheque bearingno.178879 dt. 14.5.2004 with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of presentation till the date of realization, to pay Rs.1 lakh towards damages for causing mental agony and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.3000/- towards costs of the complaint.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant lent money of Rs.4 lakhs on a pronote dt. 14.6.2002 to one Jayarama, and after repeated demands the borrower gave him a cheque dt. 14.5.2004 vide cheque no.178879 for Rs.3 lakhs towards part payment of the loan drawn on Sri Visakha Grameena Bank , Visakhapatnam . As per the request of the loanee the complainant presented the cheque after five months in his account bearing no.61418 maintained with 1st opp.party i.e. Andhra Bank , Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam on 15.10.2004 for which the 1st opp.party has acknowledged. Several times the complainant approached the 1st opp.party but he was informed that the cheque did not come from the 2nd opposite party. The complainant addressed a letter dt.5.1.2005 to the 1st opp.party and the same was received by the 1st opposite party on 6.1.2005 but he did not give any reply. Due to irresponsibility and negligence on the part of the opposite parties the complainant could not proceed against the loanee under Section 138 of NI Act and the attitude of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service . Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opp.parties to pay Rs.3 lakhs towards the amount covered under the cheque bearing no.178879 dt. 14.5.2004 with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of presentation till the date of realization, to pay Rs.1 lakh towards damages for causing mental agony and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.3000/- towards costs of the complaint.
The 1st opposite party filed counter admitting of the presenting of the cheque for collection . The opp.party stated that they have sent the cheque for collection to the 2nd opposite party on the same day but they did not receive clearance and when enquired about the delay the 2nd opposite party informed that they sent the cheque through Professional Courier, Bobbili but the packet of the courier containing the cover was lost in transit and they intimated the fact to the complainant. The opp.party no.1 stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they are not liable to the claims made by the complainant. The 1st opp.party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The opp.party no.2 filed counter contending that they have received the cheque for collection, but one Jaya Ram who is having S.B. Ac.No.2577 which was opened on 27.3.1998 has given a letter dt.10.7.2000 stating that he lost the cheque book bearing cheque nos.178861 to 178880 and asking to stop payment of those cheques. Therefore the cheque dt.15.10.2004 was returned along with the letter issued by the complainant through Professional Couriers, Parvathipuram to the 1st opposite party, but the said cover did not reach the 1st opposite party and when the 1st opposite party wrote a letter about the collection of the cheque they have caused enquiries and learnt that packet containing the letters to be sent to the Visakahapatnam was lost on 5.11.2004 during transit and they have also gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Bobbili police station but the lost packet could not be traced . The 2nd opposite party issued a registered legal notice dt.18.3.2005 to M/s. Profession Couriers for which they have replied that there was no fault on their part as the packet was lost in transit. 2nd opposite party pleaded that as per the rules when the customer issued a letter not to honour the cheque and stop payment the cheque amount could not be paid and they should not be found fault for the loss of the cover through which the cheque was returned as they have no control over the transit. The opp.party no.2 stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed documents Exs.A1 to A6.The opp.parties filed documents Exs.B1 to B16 . The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings , dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the District Forum , the complainant preferred this appeal contending that he is the bonafide customer of opp.party no.1 who has the direct obligation to discharge the due customer service of getting the submitted cheque encashed or returning the dishonoured cheque irrespective of its arrangements with the opp.party no.2 or other agents with whom the complainant has no direct relation and hence cannot claim compensation from Professional Couriers . Since the loanee issued the cheque to the complainant, after giving stop payment on it much earlier to opp.party no.2 and since the cheque was not cleared the appellant wanted to file a case against the loanee under Section138 of NI Act for which the returned cheque is required . It is the joint responsibility of both the opp.party no.1 being a direct banker and opp.party no.2 who is an acting agent or part & parcel of the opp.party no.1 to get the returned cheque or the proceeds of the cheque to the complainant The opp.party no.1 did not confirm about encashment or dishonour of the cheque in the letter dt.10.1.2005 but wrote a letter to opp.party no.2 on the same day seeking clarification on the status of the cheque and if there is any fault on the part of the Professional Courier Services, it is for the opp.party no.2 to proceed against them for compensation being their direct customer and not the appellant. The District Forum has not properly appreciated all the contentions raised by the complainant. The appellant prayed to set aside the order of the District Forum and allow the appeal.
There is no dispute that the complainant has presented a cheque to the opp.party no.1 bank and thereafter the first opposite party sent the cheque to the second opp.party for collection as it was issued in the name of the opp.party no.2 b
