Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/191/2012

ICICI Banking Ltd,Rep by its Manager & another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pankaj Dimri & another - Opp.Party(s)

P.L.Narayanan

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                     TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                MEMBER                                                                                              

F.A.NO. 191/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.195/2008, dated 18.04.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF MARCH 2015

1.  ICICI Bank Ltd,

     Represented by its Manager,

     No.298, Anna Salai,

     Chennai 600 006.

2.  ICICI Bank Ltd,

     Represented by its Authorized Signatory,

     Regional Processing Center,                                 Appellants /Opp.parties 1 & 2

     Sakthi Tower, 6^th Floor,

     No.766, Anna Salai,

     Chennai 600 002.

                              Vs

1.  Pankaj Dimri,

     New No.32, Old No.24,

     Sabar Mansion – Room No.44,

     Wallajah Road,                                                    Respondent /Complainant

     Chepauk,

     Chennai 600 005.

2.   Nasurulla,

      19, Mir Bakshi Street,                                      

      (Near Zam Bazaar Police Station),                        2^nd Respondent/3^rd Opp.party

      Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 04.03.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this  Commission made the following order:

Counsel for Appellants/Opposite parties 1 & 2 :            M/s.P.L.Narayanan 

Counsel for 1^st Respondent/ Complainant :                     M/s. R.Elango

2^nd Respondent / 3^rd opposite party        :                        Publication called absent

                                       ORDER

  J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                   This appeal is filed by the appellants / opposite parties 1 and 2 against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in CC.No.195/2008, dated 18.04.2011 allowing the complaint.

2.       The case of the complaint is that he deposited a cheque for Rs.47,800/- with the opposite parties’ bank and the cheque was dishonoured  for ‘insufficient funds’ as per the intimation letter dated 9.5.2008 sent by the 2^nd opposite party.  The intimation letter was sent only at the instance of the complainant, but the opposite parties did not send the bounced cheque to the complainant till this date, as a result of which, he is not in a position to proceed against the 3^rd opposite party who issued the cheque, under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and also in Civil Court.  This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence the complaint.

3.       According to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties the cheque deposited by the complainant for Rs.47,800/- sent for collection was returned dishonoured for the reason ‘insufficient funds’.  The return memo along with the returned cheque was sent to the complainant through courier, but the complainant did not receive the cheque and so it is to be presumed that the cheque was lost in transit.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite parties 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.

6.       It is contended by the appellants /opposite parties 1 and 2 that the dishonoured cheque dated 28.2.2008 was duly returned to the complainant through courier.  It is pertinent to note that, no evidence is adduced by the appellants/ opposite parties to establish that the returned cheque was duly transmitted to the complainant.  The impugned cheque dated 28.2.2008 has been deposited in the complainant’s account on 29.03.2008 as evidenced by Ex.A2.  But the opposite parties’ did not send any intimation to the complainant voluntarily and we have to note that, the complainant has approached the opposite parties’ bank several times and then only they have sent the intimation letter dated 9.5.2008 to the complainant which shows that only under the pressure given by the complainant to the opposite parties, the bank has sent intimation letter dated 9.5.2008 and there is inordinate delay of about 40 days in sending the intimation.  It is relevant to note that only after making several oral representations to the opposite parties by the complainant they sent the intimation letter dated 9.5.2008 and we have to further note that the returned cheque was not received by the complainant.  The appellants have not produced any evidence or any record such as receipts and registers either from their office or from the courier office to establish that they really dispatched the returned cheque immediately after receipt of the returned cheque. 

7.       It is patently evident that the appellants / opposite parties 1& 2 have not transmitted the returned cheque to the complainant and that due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 the cheque was lost somewhere.  There are no materials on record to substantiate that the returned cheque was really sent to the complainant by the appellants along with the cheque return memo.  We have to take note of the irresponsiveness and indifference on the part of the appellants in not sending the returned cheque along with the cheque return memo or any intimation letter to the complainant.  A mere a statement that immediately after the return of the cheque, the returned cheque was forwarded to the complainant will not go to substantiate that the returned cheque and the cheque return memo were sent to the complainant.

8.       The District Forum has allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and has passed an order directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the cheque amount of Rs.47,800/- to the complainant and to pay a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.5000/-.

9.       It is settled law, that the cheque amount need not be paid to the complainant by the bank.  Considering the facts that apart from loss of the cheque, the appellants have been irresponsible and indifferent in not taking steps to trace out the cheque and also in not intimating the facts to the complainant immediately thereafter and only after the complainant met the opposite parties bank officials several times, after an abnormal delay of about 40 days they have sent intimation letter dated 9.5.2008, that too, without the returned cheque.  They have made a false statement that the returned cheque was already sent to the complainant without any basis.  Further it is relevant to note that, the appellants did not send any reply to the notice issued by the complainant.

10.     Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the direction of the District Forum to pay cheque amount of Rs.47,800/- to the complainant and we feel that award of Rs.30,000/- would be the reasonable compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

11.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside the direction of the District Forum to pay the cheque amount of Rs.47,800/- and directing the appellants / opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the deficiency in service on their part and confirming the rest of the order.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                            J.JAYARAM

    MEMBER                                                      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES; NO

VL/D;/PJM/ BANK