KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO.390/2012

JUDGMENT DATED:13.06.2013

                  (Against the order in CC.416/08 on the file of CDRF, Ernalulam, dtd:30.11.11)

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI              :  PRESIDENT

1. M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.,

HDFC Bank House,

Senapti  Bapat Marg,                                            

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013.

: APPELLANTS

2. M/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 40/7995(B),

Prabhu Towers, Cochin-682 035,

R/by its Branch Manager.

(By Adv: M/s Peter & Karunakar)

            Vs.

M/s Oasis Tours India (Pvt)Ltd.,

Regd. Office 17/18, Dwaraka Sadan,

C-40, Middle circle, Cannaught Circle,             : RESPONDENT

New Delhi-110 011, R/by its authorized

Officer and Director Sri.Thomas T.T.

(By Adv: Sri.George Cheriyan Karippaparambil)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.416/08 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 30, 2011 directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant for dishonouring their cheque without any reason.

          2.      Respondent/complainant is M/s Oasis Tours India Private Limited, New Delhi represented by its Director, PW1.  The case of the complainant as testified by PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:

          3.      Complainant is a Private Limited Company and is accredited to International Air Transport Association travel agent (IATA) with an immaculate reputation in business.  Complainant was maintaining a type silver RET current account with the 2^nd opposite party Bank.  Complainant issued cheque No.238112 on June 30, 2006 on the then Centurion Bank of Punjab presently HDFC Bank Limited for Rs.8,94,678/- infavour of M/s Deutche Bank account IATA BSP India.  There was a credit balance of Rs.10,08,185.29 in the account.  There was also standing instruction given to 2^nd opposite party to transfer the funds from the account of Mrs.Amminikutty Thomas to meet any eventuality of short fall in the account of the complainant. Inspite of all these the cheque was dishonoured by the bank which caused lot of inconveniences to the complainant.  Complainant claimed a compensation of  Rs.20,00,000/-.

          4.      First appellant/first opposite party is the Head Office of HDFC bank, Mumbai represented by its Managing Director and 2^nd appellant/2^nd  opposite party is its Branch Office at Kochi.  They in their version contended thus:  It is true that complainant issued the cheque mentioned in the complaint, copy of which is marked as Ext.A4, drawn on 2^nd opposite party infavour of M/s Deutche Bank on June 30, 2008 which is deposited on the same date.  Complainant had deposited 4 other cheques for collection on the same date.  Out of those 4 cheques, 3 cheques were drawn on Federal Bank Limited for Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.42,038/- and for Rs.3,00,000/- respectively.  One cheque was drawn on the bank of Baroda for Rs.26,125/-.  Those 4 cheques were encashed only on July 4, 2008 due to non participation of staffs.  Therefore on June 30, 2008 the available balance in the account of the complainant was only Rs.5,40,022.29.  Therefore the cheque in question was dishonoured.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          5.      PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the complainant before the Forum.  Opposite parties examined  DW1 and DW2 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on their side.  Ext.C1 was also marked.  On an appreciation of evidence, the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not clearing the said cheques and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.  Opposite parties have come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

          6.      Heard both counsels.

The following points arise for consideration:-

1.      Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not clearing disputed cheque Ext.A4 within time?

2.      Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

          7.      Questioning the maintainability of the complaint opposite parties filed I.A.344/09 before the Forum and the Forum in the light of the principles laid down by the apex court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and Another Vs. Ashok Iron Works 2009 CTJ (SC) (CP) 233 found that complaint is maintainable and dismissed the I.A. by order dated, November 19, 2009.  The opposite parties have not challenged the same in revision.  Therefore the said finding of the Forum has become final.

          8.      That being so, the only point to be considered is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in dishonouring the cheque Ext.A4.  The specific case of the appellants is that there was no sufficient fund in the account of the complainant, PW1 at that time and that therefore cheque was dishonoured.  There is no merit in the above contention of the appellant.  Ext.A4 cheque was issued on June 30, 2008 for Rs.8,94,678/- the amount available in the account of the complainant on that date was Rs.5,40,022.29. The wife of PW1 Smt. Amminikutty Thomas had issued Ext.A13 letter on April 16, 2008 authorising the 2^nd opposite party to transfer money from her account to the account of the complainant.  Second opposite party should have transferred that amount from the account of the wife of PW1 and should have honoured the cheque Ext.A4.  Ext.B1 the account statement of the complainant shows that 2^nd opposite party has been availing that facility on several occasions.

          9.      There is another aspect in this case on June 30, 2008.  Complainant deposited 4 cheques for collection including that amount the amount in the account of the complainant comes to Rs.12,65,681.20.  The contention of the appellants that due to strike of bank employees those cheques were cleared only on June 2, 2008 appears to be not correct in the light of Ext.A1 the clearing statement registers of 1^st and 2^nd of July.  Therefore the contention of the appellant that there was no sufficient balance in the account of the complainant to honour Ext.A4 cannot be accepted.  It follows that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which they have to pay compensation to the complainant.

          Next question for consideration, what is the compensation the claimant is entitled to?  The Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.  Taking into account the hardship caused to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case I feel that compensation awarded by the Forum is just and reasonable.

In the result the appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI:  PRESIDENT

VL.