BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABADF.A.No.1130 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.194 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM WEST GODAVARI ELURU
Between:
1. The Branch Manager
M/s Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.,
D.No.22-15-91, Opp. MRO Office
Bhimavaram, West Godavari District
2. The Regional Manager,
M/s Karur Vysya Bank Limited
Regional office, Bangalore. Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
Koti Venkataramaiah
S/o Ranga Rao R/o Kalla Mandal
W.G.District Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.Srinivasa Rao
Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao
F.A.No.1300 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.194 OF 2007
Between:
Koti Venkataramaiah
S/o Ranga Rao R/o Kolla Village
Kalla Mandal, W.G.District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Branch Manager
M/s Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.,
D.No.22-15-91, Opp. MRO Office
Bhimavaram, West Godavari District
2. The Regional Manager,
M/s Karur Vysya Bank Limited
Regional office, Bangalore.
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao
Counsel for the Respondents Sri K.Srinivasa Rao
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. Both appeals are directed against the same order dated 16th July, 2008 passed by the District Forum in C.D.No. 194 of 2007. The opposite parties have preferred the appeal no.1130 of 2009 while the complainant has filed the appeal no.1300 of2007.
2. For the felicity of expression, the parties are referred to as they had been arrayed in the complaint. The complainant being dissatisfied with the amount of Rs.15,000/-awarded as compensation, has filed the appeal contending that the amount is inadequate whereas the opposite parties have challenged the order on the premise that the complainant was negligent in keeping the cheque with her and presenting it for collection in the eleventh hour and that out of the seven days left for expiry of the validity of the cheque five days were holidays as also that the drawer of the cheque had closed his account on 26th June,2006 prior to the issuing of the cheque.
3. The facts of the case are that on 23rd December,2006, the complainant presented in his account bearing number 143115500003164 with the opposite party no.1 the cheque bearing number 287336 for Rupees Eight lakh for which the first opposite party collected collection charges of Rs.3080/-. As the two subsequent days were holidays, the first opposite party had sent the cheque on 26th December,2006 through their authorized courier. The courier returned the cheque to the first opposite party on 29th December,2006 on the premise that they had no receiving point at West Vupparu. Thereafter, after negotiationing with the courier, the first opposite party has again sent the cheque which was returned by the ING Vysya Bank,West Vipparu with memo dated 22nd January,2007 that the cheque was out dated. The first opposite party had returned the cheque to the complainant along with voucher dated 25th January,2007. The complainant got issued notice through his lawyer on28th Feburary,2007 for which the first opposite party issued reply on 14th March,2007 which was followed by rejoinder dated 20th August,2008 from the complainant which in turn evoked reply dated 20th September,2007. The complainant sought for payment of eight lakh rupees with interest@24% thereon.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit and the documents ExA1 toA9. The first opposite party has filed his affidavit and Ex.B1 to B5 had been marked on their side.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the opposite party no.1 was negligent in sending the cheque through the same courier though after holding negotiations with the courier, as the same courier returned the cheque on the premise that it had no service point at Vipparu, where the destination point of the cheque ING Vysya Bank is carrying on its business in banking.
6. The counsel for both parties had filed written arguments. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court II CPR 1995 (1)420 in Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Culcutta and another.
7. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation from the
opposite parties no.1 and 2?
2) Whether the opposite parties were negligent in handling the
cheque?
3) To what relief?
8. POINTS NOS.1 & 2: Several facts are not in dispute and the only aspect at which the parties are throwing blame on one another is the presentation of the cheque by the complainant only during the validity of last seven days of the cheque and thereafter the manner of handling of the cheque by the first opposite party which has been styled as negligence of one party by the other party. The opposite parties had sent the cheque through their courier to the ING Vysa Bank Limited, West Vipparru Branch on 26.12.2006 and the reasons cited for sending the cheque on that day after three days of its presentation for collection by the complainant was that 24th and 25th December 2006 were happened to be holidays as also the cheque was presented before closing of banking hours on 23.12.2006. At this stage, it cannot be said that the opposite parties were negligent in transmitting the cheque to the drawee bank.
9. The opposite parties had sent the cheque which was returned on 29.12.2006 through the same courier which had returned the cheque that it had no service point at the receiving bank. The opposite parties contend that only after holding negotiations with the courier, they had sent the cheque again on the promise of the courier that the cheque would be delivered to the Bank. The District Forum has found fault with the opposite parties on the count that the opposite parties ought not to have sent the cheque through the same courier as the cheque was returned on the premise that the courier had no service point at the locality where the receiving bank has been carrying on in its business affairs. The cheque was returned on 29.12.2006 and its validity would expire by 1.1.2007. The opposite parties had sent the cheque again on 2.1.2007 which by itself shows the fact that the validity of the cheque was expired. No useful purpose would be served by sending a cheque whose validity was expired except in the circumstances where there is an internal understanding between the banks in this regard and the same is evident by the conduct of the opposite parties in sending the cheque for collection on 2.1.2007. On two aspects, the opposite parties cannot be held guilty of negligence in this regard, in the first place the cheque was returned on 29.12.2006 hardly two days before the expiry of its validity and secondly the courier had, it appears agreed to deliver the cheque despite the fact that it had no service point at the receiving bank.
10. At the time of filing the appeal, the opposite parties have filed I.A.No.2254 of 2009 to receive the letter dated 19.6.2008 issued by ING Vysya Bank Limited, West Vipparru Branch, West Godavari District. On perusal of the letter, we have come to the conclusion that it would serve in the effective determination of the point involved in the subject matter of the case. Hence, the petition has been allowed and the document is considered for appreciation and marked as Ex.B6. The branch manager of ING Vysya Bank Limited has addressed the letter in reply to the query of the opposite parties in regard to the cheque bearing no.287666 dated 1.7.2006 and the letter reads as under:
“As reference to the above mentioned account No.722010015826 (old A/c No.10302) in the name of BAISETTY SATYANARAYANA and BSRK SAVITRI of Pentapadu Village. The account was closed on 26.6.2006”
11. The manager of the Vysya Bank Vipparu Branch has made it clear that the drawer of the cheque had closed his account after closure of the account he had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. The complainant had not taken any steps against the drawer of the cheque. A cheque issued against a dead account is no more a negotiable instrument worthy of consideration for any practical purpose. The complainant cannot proceed to claim compensation on the basis of an invalid cheque. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal filed by the opposite parties.
12. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties has no bearing on the facts of the case as that judgment was rendered in regard to the loss of service to the customers of the bank for 54 days on account of illegal strike by its employees.
13. In the result the appeal F.A.no.1130 of 2009 filed by the oppostie parties is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. As a sequel F.A.No.1300 of 2008 filed by the complainant is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.23.12.2010
KMK*
