Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/366/2014

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, THE BRANCH MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARVATHY - Opp.Party(s)

C.R. BASHYAM

13 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :    HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI               PRESIDENT  

                                                              THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                              TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                               MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.366/2014

(Against the order in CC.No.16/2013, dated 21.06.2013 on the file of DCDRF, Chengalpattu)

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

The Branch Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

West Tambaram Branch,                                     ..Appellant / Opposite party

DBR Tower, Mudichur Road,

Chennai – 45.

                                       Vs

Parvathy,

W/o.S.Arularasan,

No.60, Mudichur Road,                                           Respondent / Complainant

West Tambaram,

Chennai 45.

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 29.01.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:

Counsel for Appellant/ Opposite party   :   Mr.C.R.Bashyam        

Counsel for Respondent/ Complainant   :  M/s.R.Elango

                        

J.JAYARAM,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Chengalpattu in CC.No.16/2013 dated 21.06.2013, allowing the complaint.

2.       The case of the complainant is that she issued a cheque of the opposite party Bank dated  8.10.2012 for  Rs.11,625/- drawn  in  favour  of the  school where her daughter was studying, towards the semester fees, but the cheque was returned dishonoured on 10.10.2012 to the complainant with the cheque return memo with the endorsement “Reason No.75”.  There are only 16 consecutive numbers in the cheque return memo Ex.A2 and the complainant could not understand the reason for the return of the cheque.  There was sufficient fund in her bank account and there could be no reason to return the cheque for want of funds.  The return of the cheque without disclosing the reason amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint.

3.       The opposite party remained absent before the District Forum having received the court’s notice and hence he was set exparte by the District Forum.

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 party in returning the cheque without disclosing any reason.  Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

5.       Admittedly the Cheque Ex.A1 issued by the complainant for Rs.11,625/- dated 8.10.2012 issued in favour of the school has been returned dishounoured and unpaid to the complainant on 10.10.2012.

6.       It is pertinent to note that, in the cheque return memo Ex.A2 the reason for the return of the cheque is mentioned as “Returned un-paid for the reason No.75” and we find that in the cheque return memo sent by the opposite party to the complainant there are only 16 columns enumerating various reasons. We  do not find any reason No.75 which is non-existent.  Thus  we find  that  the complainant’s cheque has been returned to the complainant without disclosing the correct reason by the opposite party and the reason appears to be mysterious.  Therefore the return of the cheque to the complainant without disclosing any reason stating a false No.75 which reason is not found in the cheque return memo amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

7.       It is contended by the opposite party that this happened due to the fault of the other bank namely Corporation Bank and that there is no fault or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party / appellant and this contention is untenable and is unsubstantiated.

8.       We do not find any merit in the contention of the opposite party in the grounds of appeal that the District Forum blindly followed the complainant’s version and the District Forum made hasty disposal and non application of mind.

9.       There is no force in the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is bad for non-joinder of Corporation Bank where the school was having account.

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

11.     The District Forum has allowed the complaint passing an order directing the opposite party to pay a  sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of return of the cheque viz 10.10.2012 till realization and to pay costs of Rs.1000/-.

12.     The award of the District Forum is quite reasonable and does not warrant our interference.          There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum.

 

13.               In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIAYAVATHI                        J.JAYARAM                              R.REGUPATHI

    MEMBER                                (J)MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

INDEX ; YES / NO

VL/D;/PJM/Bank