Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/243/2013

DR. R. ELANGOVAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAGAVENDRAN, MANAGER,KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

G. GOPALAKRISHNAN

20 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE        HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI        PRESIDENT

                        THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                          JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                        TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                 MEMBER

                           

F.A.NO. 243/2013

        (Against order in  C.C No.74/2012 dated 3.6.2013 on the file of the DCDRF, Chengalpattu]

 

Dated this the  20^th day of FEBRuary, 2015

 

Dr.R.Elangovan

No.9, NSR Road,

Nehru Nagar,

Chromepet

Chennai 600 044                                     ..Appellant/complainant

                                     Vs

1. Mr. Ragavendran

Manager,

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd,

T.Nagar Branch,

Chennai 600 017   

 

2. S.Guruguhanathan,

Door No.96, New Municipal door No. 383,

GST Road, Kandaperri, West Tambaram

Chennai 600 045                                   ..Respondent/opp.parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant    :   M/s G.Gopalakrishnan

Counsel for the Respondent/opp.party 1  :   M/s V.S.Chandrasekaran

2^nd Respondent/2^nd opp.party                 :   called absent

 

The Appellant is the complainant. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.74/2012 dated 3.6.2013.  

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.1.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order. 

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     The unsatisfied complainant is the appellant.

2.     The complainant presented a Demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) issued in favour of him to the 2^nd opposite party due to settlement of certain litigation presented the same for collection to give credit to his account through the 1^st opposite party’s bank, on 27.8.2011 and when he approached the bank to make entry regarding the credit of the amount, he was informed that the Demand draft was dishonoured due to reported loss and further the Demand draft amount was given credit to the account of the 2^nd opposite party at the request of 2^nd opposite party without verifying the genuineness of the claim by 2^nd opposite party and thereby filed a consumer complaint claiming a re-payment of Rs.1 lakh against the opposite parties 1 and 2 and Rs.5 lakhs as compensation and for cost.

 2.        Before the District Forum, in the proceeding, opposite parties 1 and 2, though received notices not appeared and thereby they were set exparte.

3.     On the basis of materials placed by the complainant on merits, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directingthe opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only as compensation and rejecting other reliefs as not entitled.

3.      Aggrieved by the impugned order and not satisfied with the award, the complainant/appellant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint in part only directing to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and relating the other prayers in the complaint disallowed without assigning any reason there for and thereby the appeal is to be allowed by Granting all the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.  

4.   When the appeal is taken up the 2^nd Respondent, 2^nd opposite party remained absent in spite of notice effected by way of publication. The 1^st Respondent represented by counsel, we have heard the arguments of appellant and also carefully considered the materials before us.

5.    It is the admitted case of complainant presented  Demand draft for Rs.1 lakh on 27.8.2011 issued in favour of him by the 2^nd opposite party due to some arrangements of settlement in the earlier disputes between them and when it was presented for collection and credit to his account with the 1^st opposite party subsequently the complainant came to know that the Demand draft was dishonoured on the basis of report of loss given by the 2^nd opposite party to the bank for cancellation  of  Demand  draft and  given  credit into  his  account  as  per  Ex.A.2, letter on executing indemnity bond under Ex.A3, the demand draft was not honoured as per the return memo under Ex.A2, dated 27.8.2011.

6.   From these details, it is clear that the 1^st opposite party bank seems to have colluded with the 2^nd opposite party  in such transactions when the complainant lawfully presented the demand draft issued in his favour for collection and credit into his account through the 1^st opposite party bank on 27.8.2011 since on the same date, the 2^nd opposite party given a letter for cancellation of demand draft stating that his counsel misplaced the same, when the complainant stated that it was handed over to him by the 2^nd opposite party’s counsel directly in the court premises during the criminal proceedings as per settlement between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party, the bank without ascertaining the genuineness of presenting of demand draft by account holder for collection simply dishonoured and  original demand draft was returned to the complainant as per return memo under Ex.A2. When the 2^nd complainant executed indemnity bond to face the consequence in the event of recovery of lost demand draft and when the original demand draft was

presented by the complainant for collection the bank instead of proceeding against the 2^nd opposite party for the recovery of money on the basis of indemnity bond, simply it was kept quiet as the amount said to have been already given to the credit to the 2^nd opposite party.  The normal procedure to be followed n the case of report of loss of original Demand Draft issued and request was made for cancellation or issue of duplicate the bank ought to have issued duplicate Demand draft for the holder in original who lost it or in case of cancellation and payment to the person who had obtained Demand Draft the amount should be paid on executing indemnity bond and if the lost original DD came to be traced out or presented by parties it should be retained and cancelled by recovery enclosure by the bank on the basis of Ex.A4.  But in this case instead of following the above procedure 1^st opposite party being the experienced manager of the bank colluded with the opposite party failed to retain the original Demand Draft when presented by the complainant for collection instead of retaining it for cancellation and to proceed against the 2^nd opposite party for redemption on the basis of indemnity bond returned it to the complainant with the return memo.

  7.      In those circumstances it is clearly proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and since the  2^nd  opposite party  being  the  person issued demand draft through his counsel to the complainant and failed to dispute the same by taking part in the proceedings, he should also held liable and accordingly, we find no infirmity or error with the finding of the District Forum in this regard. As far as the claim of Rs.1 lakh by the complainant is concerned, since the original D.D was returned by the bank to the complainant along with return memo and the amount was already said to have been given credit to the 2^nd opposite party account on the basis of indemnity bond, the Consumer Forum cannot direct for the payment of the same by the opposite parties and it is for the complainant to proceed against them through the necessary legal Forum. The District Forum awarded Rs.20000/- as compensation for deficiency in service without specifically mentioning for the cause and no separate costs was also awarded.

8.   Hence, we are inclined to construe the amount of Rs.20000/- awarded as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service caused by the opposite parties to the complainant and since the complainant argued that no cost was awarded and without any reasons for the same, we are inclined to consider the same and to propose to award a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost in this regard and accordingly to that extent alone the appeal is to be allowed.

         In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum as follows:-

       The order of the District Forum directing to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant by the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally is treated as compensation towards mental agony and deficiency of service and opposite parties are directed to pay the same to the complainant.

        Further the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost for the proceeding initiated by the complainant before the District Forum in this case.  It is left open to the complainant to proceed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 for non payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on the basis of Demand draft issued by the 2^nd opposite party which was wrongly dishonoured and returned by the 1^st opposite party.

       The directions shall be complied by the opposite parties within six weeks from the date of this order.

                 No separate costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                  A.K.ANNAMALAI                             R.REGUPATHI

   MEMBER                           JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT