KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:133/2003 JUDGMENT DATED.20..10..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1.Sri.K. Santhosh Kumar, Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Kattakkada Branch, Kattakkada. 2.Manager, State Bank of Travancore, : APPELLANTS Kattakkada Branch, Kattakkada. 3.Regional Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv: Sri.K.Satheesh Kumar) V. Sathyaseelan, S/o Sivaraman, Shaji Nivas, Kazhavancode, : REPONDENT Kattakkada.P.O, Kattakkada. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.205/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had issued ‘stop – payment’ instructions as he lost certain cheque leaves. But the opposite party/appellant issued memo with respect to a cheque presented for 1.5.lakhs by one Amaresan that it is dishonored for insufficiency of funds. The above Amaresan has instituted Sec.138 N.I.Act proceedings. He has claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The opposite party/appellant has admitted the lapse. It is mentioned that it was only a genuine mistake. It is also contended that whether the cheque was dishonored for “insufficiency of funds” or returned mentioning “stop – payment” the consequences under Sec.138 will be attracted. It is also mentioned that immediately thereafter the drawee was informed of the mistake committed by the staff of the bank. 4. We find the Forum has allowed the complaint and directed to pay compensation and cost as mentioned above. 5. We find that the Forum has held that just because of the lapse on the part of the opposite party the complainant had to face Sec.138 proceedings. According to the Forum whether the complainant gets acquitted or not he had to face the criminal proceedings. It was pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that even if the cheque was returned with the endorsement of stop-payment as instructed by the account holder Sec.138 will be attracted. The drawee will be initiatings the proceedings even after the payment was stopped the appellant. We find that there is force in the above contentions. All the same there is deficiency on the part of the appellant as being a financial institution the appellant ought to have been extremely careful in dealing with the instructions of the account holder. Taking into consideration the consequences of the action on the part of the staff of the appellant we find that a compensation of Rs.2000/- with future interest at 6% would be adequate. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is modified to the above extent. The direction to pay cost of Rs.1000/- is sustained. The appellant will pay the amount of compensation or remit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant, within three months from the date of this order, failing which the appellant would be liable to pay interest at 12% from the date of this order. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
