Dtd.28.04.2023                                            A/704/2013

O R D E R

        BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.07.03.2013 passed in CC/1868/2012 on the file of 3^rd Addl., District Forum, Bengaluru urban.
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard and to decide on the appeal in consideration of the grounds of appeal?.
3. Let us examine facts to be narrate. One Mr.S.Kumaresan S/o Sivasubramani.P, raised consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP bank, as he has dropped a cheque bearing no.115186 drawn on HDFC Bank for collection amounting to Rs.40,631/- issued in his favour by the Apollo Munich Health Insurance. Since, OP bank has not credited the cheque amount to his account and has not informed about status of the cheque whether it was credited or not. Hence he lodged   complaint with customer care service, despite bank did not make any efforts to trace the said cheque and get it honoured by crediting to his account.
4.  We examined the enquiry file, thereby found, OP bank failed to file any affidavit evidence to substantiate their contention as to why the cheque dropped was not given credited to his account or else to inform its status. In such circumstances, the Forum below having accepted the case of the Complainant  awarded Rs.40,631/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from 03.07.2012 till realisation and awarded some amount of compensation for rendering deficiency in service and some amount towards litigation cost. In our view, as it is found from enquiry file, OP being a Banker held public money. The Complainant in his complaint had stated cheque amounting to Rs.40,631/- was issued in his name by his insurer Apollo Munich Health Insurance was dropped with the OP Bank which was not credited to his account nor informed its status. In this regard, Learned counsel for Appellant submits that the said cheque was returned to the Complainant for the reason difference in his name. In other words, reason for return of the said cheque was for ‘name mismatch.’ In order to ascertain on this submission, we examined ‘Outward CLG/OSC return register’ wherein could see return of the said cheque to the Complainant was for ‘name difference.’ In such circumstances, an endorsement was issued on 05.07.2012 as ‘payee name mismatch.’ As such if these documents could have produced along with receipt obtained from Professional courier Forum could have examined and the result would have been different, since OP bank failed to submit either affidavit evidence or  documents to substantiate such defence has to be held negligent to keep its customer well informed. In such circumstances, we are of the view that, action of OP bank from any angle could  not  be appreciated, but facts remain that awarding Rs.40,631/-, which is almost the cheque amount issued by Apollo Munich Health Insurance namely insurer is not correct. In other words, the Forum below committed gross error in awarding such amount ignoring the fact the cheque issued by his insurer is not realised and the liability of the insurer is still subsisting in other words insurer is liable to pay such amount by issuing yet another cheque in the name of insured. It is to be noted herein that if cheque issued mismatching the name of the insured insurer to answer and not the OP-Banker.
5. We have also found from enquiry that Complainant has failed to furnish details obtained from his insurer, whether the said cheque was credited to his account or to the account of third party.  Further to be noted herein that, Complainant could have  obtained details from his insurer and after obtaining details from OP bank as to mismatching his name in the cheque and could have requested insurance company to issue the cheque afresh with correct name to get redress his dispute in right way, which is lacking from the enquiry file.
6. In the above such circumstances, it would be just and proper to remand back this matter to the Commission below to decide the case afresh affording opportunity to both parties. Accordingly proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently set aside the impugned order dtd.07.03.2013 passed in CC/1868/2012 on the file of 3^rd Addl., District Forum, Bengaluru urban with a direction to readmit the complaint and afford opportunity to both parties to place additional evidence if any and decide the complaint on merits as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Appellant/OP is directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant before the Commission below. Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of.       
8. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful. 
9. Return the LCR to the District Commission.
10. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

   Lady Member                                Judicial Member               

*NS*