SAMALA SURESH BABU V/S PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/1351/06

PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMALA SURESH BABU - Opp.Party(s)

MS D GOPALAKRISHN

31 Jul 2009

ORDER

First Appeal No. FA/1351/06

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Nellore)

1. PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK

REP BM RAJA STREET VENKATAGIRI TOWN NELLORU

BEFORE:

PRESENT:

ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1351/2006 against C.C. 180/2004, Dist. Forum, Nellore

Between:

Pinakini Grameena Bank

Rep. by its Branch Manager

Raja Street

Venkatagiri Town

Nellore Dist. *** Appellants/

O.P. No. 1

And

1. Samala Suresh Babu

S/o. Venkata Krishnaiah

Age: 36 years, Business

R/o. Padmasali Street

Venkatagiri Town.

Nellore *** Respondent/

Complainant

2. Andhra Bank

Rep. by its Branch Manager

Plot No. 7, H.No. 8-3-993

Doyen Galaxy Main Road

Srinagar Colony

Hyderabad. *** Respondent/

O.P. No. 2.

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Kadari Rama Reddy

Counsel for the Resp: M/s. A. Krishnam Raju (R2)

R1 served.

F.A. 428/2009 against C.C. 180/2004, Dist. Forum, Nellore

Between:

Andhra Bank

Rep. by its Branch Manager

Plot No. 7, H.No. 8-3-993

Doyen Galaxy Main Road

Srinagar Colony

Hyderabad *** Appellant/ O.P. No. 2.

And

1. Samala Suresh Babu

S/o. Venkata Krishnaiah

Age: 36 years, Business

R/o. Padmasali Street

Venkatagiri Town.

Nellore *** Respondent/

Complainant

2. Pinakini Grameena Bank

Rep. by its Branch Manager

Raja Street

Venkatagiri Town

Nellore Dist. *** Appellants/

O.P. No. 1

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. A. Krishnam Raju

Counsel for the Resp: Mr. Kadari Rama Reddy(R2)

R1 served.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER

FRIDAY, THIS THE THIRTY FIRSTJULY TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1) These two appeals are preferred by the opposite parties 1 & 2 the respondent banks against the order of the Dist. Forum Dt. 13.3.2006 directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each together with interest @ 9% p.a., from 1.10.2004 with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

2) Since both opposite parties have preferred appeals we describe the parties as arrayed in the original complaint before the Dist. Forum for felicity of expression and avoid confusion. Since both these appeals are against the very same order both appeals are disposed of by this common order :

3) The case of the complainant in brief is that one K. Madhavi, who is indebted to the complainant, gave him two cheques dated 10.4.2004 and 20.4.2004 for Rs. 20,000/- each drawn on Andhra Bank appellant in F.A. No. 428/2009. He deposited the said cheques on 1.10.2004 in his bank i.e., Pinakini Grameena Bank the appellant in F.A. No. 1351/2006 which in turn sent the same through Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Office, Hyderabad for collection on 5.10.2004. However, the said bank sent those cheques to Andhra Bank on 12. 10.2004 which had dishonoured with endorsement that the date was expired. However, one of the cheques Dt. 20.4.2004, was not beyond 6 months and it was within time. Thus Andhra Bank has dishonoured the cheque illegally, though it was in time, which amounts to deficiency in service. Equally the Pinakini Grameena bank was guilty of deficiency in service in not sending the cheques in time. Had these cheques been sent immediately, they could not have been returned. Therefore, he filed the complaint for recovery of the amount covered under the cheques besides Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs.

4) Opposite Party No. 1 Pinakini Grameena bank resisted the case. While admitting that two cheques were presented to it on 1.10.2004, however, they could not be sent on 2. 10.2004 and 3.10.2004, being public holidays, and on 4.10.2004 as there was heavy bank transactions, they could only be sent on 5.10.2004 through Syndicate Bank Central Accounts Office. There was no deficiency in service on its part. Had these cheques been presented in advance it could not have been delayed. It is also their contention that a period of 14 days is allowed for them to clear the out station cheques from the date of receipt of cheques. The delay in transit cannot be construed as deficiency in service on its part. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5) Opposite Party No. 2 Andhra Bank equally resisted the case. It alleged that it had received the cheques on 14.10.2004. As one of the cheques Dt. 10.4.2004 was beyond the period stipulated it was returned. There was a problem with computer system and they had to respond 431 instruments in inward clearing and 180 instruments in outward clearing in a span of one hour. During the pressure of work, the other cheque was also returned. There was no deficiency in service on its part. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Ex. A1 to A9 marked, while the opposite parties did not file either affidavit evidence or documentary evidence.

7) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there was delay on the part of both the banks either in sending the cheques or returning the cheques. At any rate, Andhra Bank could not have returned the cheques on the ground that it was received after expiry of six months though it was within time. Therefore, it held that there was deficiency in service on their part and directed them to pay Rs. 20,000/- each with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.10.2004 together with costs of Rs. 1,000/- each.

8) Aggrieved by the said decision Opposite Party No. 1 Prinakini Grameena Bank preferred the appeal F.A. No. 1351/2006 while Opposite Party No. 2 Andhra Bank preferred the appeal F.A. No. 428/2009 contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the fact or law in correct perspective. Pinakini Grameena bank further contended that if there was any delay it was on the part of courier in delivering the instruments and therefore the courier ought to have been made a necessary party to charge. Opposite Party No. 2 Andhra Bank while regretting returning of one of the cheques which was well within time contended, that it was only on account of pressure of work that was happened. At any rate, both of them contended that the compensation awarded was excessive.

10) The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the Dist. Forum?

11) Admittedly both the cheques were presented before the six months period ran out. Thus there was no delay in presentment, though they were presented at the time very close to the date of expiry of six months. Even in such case the banks cannot take advantage of that circumstance as the statute contemplates six months period validity for a cheque and the presentment was before the expiry of said period. Likewise, the Pinakini Grameena bank also cannot take advantage that there was delay on the part of their courier in that particular aspect and for the latches on the part of their courier the consumer should not be penalised. In such a case, it had to take action against the courier, after reimbursing their customer. The other contention that it had 14 days time for realization of cheques cannot also be accepted as they did not produce any authority and it is unreasonable to think that if really they had such kind of grace period of 14 days, to encash the cheque it would also be available to the consumer and the validity of the cheque could not have been extinguished to that extent.

In any view of the matter, in the absence of any statutory authority supporting the said contention, it cannot be countenanced. The Dist. Forum rightly awarded the amount covered by the cheques with interest @ 9% p.a., as there are number of other lapses on the part of appellant banks. The Andhra Bank recklessly sent back one of the cheques that was still valid by the time of return. Likewise the Pinakini Grameena bank did not take on Syndicate Bank for sending them belatedly or on the courier that was instrumental in causing all the delay. Thus both the banks failed in discharging their duty. In so far as deficiency in service on the part of banks is concerned there is absolutely no flaw in the approach of the Dist. Forum. However, we may add that the complainant did not aver anywhere that the cause of action against his debtor had extinguished by the date of filing of the complaint. We therefore feel it necessary in the interests of justice that he too should be prevented from getting the double benefit by initiating action against his own debtor as the order of this Commission will have the effect of liquidating the debt of his debtor K. Madhavi itself.

12) With these observations, we do not see any grounds to reverse the order of the Dist. Forum. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.

1) _______________________________

PRESIDENT