Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/203

S S CHANDRAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOUTH INDIAN BANK - Opp.Party(s)

T J LAKSHMANAN

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NUMBER 203/16

JUDGMENT DATED :23.01.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.789/2014

on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT.R                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT

S.S.Chandran, Manager, M/s.ASK Rathnasamy Nadar,

Madackel Tower, Soumya Nagar Road, Alinchuvadu, Kochi -24

                                  

         (By Adv.Sri.Rajesh .K.B & Adv.Sri.Lakshmanan.T.J)

                                        VS

RESPONDENTS

1. South Indian Bank Ltd, Head Office, T.B.Road Mission,

Quarters, Thrissur – 698 001

Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director

 

2. The Senior Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd, Vennala, Branch Door No.34/585, (C2,C4) Wad No.41, Krishna Towers, Civil Lanes Road, Padivattm, Edappally.P.O
3.  

 

(R1 & (R2 by Adv.Sri.R.S.Mohanan Nair)

 

 

      

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                          The complainant in CC.No.789/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, in short the district forum, has passed the appeal against the order passed by the forum by which the complaint was dismissed finding that the complaint is not maintainable before the forum and the complaint was directed to pay Rs 2000/- as cost to the opposite party.

                          2.   The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. The complainant S.S.Chandran, is the manager of M/s.A.S.K.Rathnaswamy a firm distributing various products of the companies like Bosch, JK files (India) Ltd etc. The firm maintains its current account with over draft facility in the opposite party, M/s.South Indian Bank, Vennala Branch. The complaint has been filed alleging that an amount of Rs 3,76,406/- was fraudulently encahsed in respect of a cheque in the name of M/s.J.K Files (India) Limited, Chennai. The prayer of the complainant is to declare that the opposite party, M/s.South Indian Bank Limited and its Senior Manager, Vennala Branch are liable to pay Rs 6,50,000/- as compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the unauthorised payment of the cheque and to declare that the opposite parties are liable to pay damages for the mental stress and agony. The complainant also seeks for realization of cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties.

                          3.   The opposite parties filed version raising the following contentions. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is a partnership firm having a turnover of more than  18-20 crores, functioning with 100’s of employees. The cheques involved in the case were used for commercial purpose. The Firm has to be represented by the Managing partner or all the partners. The complaint is filed by the Manager of the firm, who is not competent to file the complaint. Since the transaction with regard to the cheque stems out of a commercial transaction the complaint is not maintainable before the forum and if the complainant had got grievance he has to seek remedy before the appropriate civil court. The cheque was sent through courier service and it was stated to have been lost during transit and that was due to the negligence of the employees of the courier service. They are not made as a party to the complaint. On that ground also the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is not entitled to get any relief against the opposite parties.

                          4.   Since the opposite parties raised objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint before the district forum, that matter was heard and the district forum passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint, finding that the complaint is not maintainable before the forum and the complaint was directed to pay Rs 2000/- as cost to the opposite party.

                          5.   Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the complainant has filed the present appeal.

                          6.   Heard both sides. Perused the records.

                          7.   There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant is a firm doing business transactions, distributing various products of several companies and for their business purpose they maintained an account with over draft facility with the opposite party bank. The transaction with receipt of the cheque in question was admittedly for the business transaction of the complainant, for the purpose of purchasing articles for commercial purpose. The complainant availed the service of the opposite party bank for commercial purpose, in connection with their business transaction which was intended to generate profit. Since the complainant is a firm, a juristic person, there arises no question of self employment exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood so as to cover the case under the explanation to section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Further nowhere in the complaint it is stated that the complainant was conducting the business, commercial transaction, exclusively for the purpose of earning the livelihood of its partners, by means of self employment. The complainant firm is not represented by a competent person. Considering all these facts the district forum found that the complainant firm is not a consumer, defined in section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint is not maintainable. So the district forum dismissed the complaint. We consider that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the finding of the district forum. The district forum ordered the complainant to pay the cost of Rs 2000/- to the opposite parties. Considering the facts and circumstances we consider that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the order passed by the district forum to pay cost of Rs 2000/- by the complainant to the opposite parties. So the appeal is to be dismissed.

                          In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 

                           It is made clear that the dismissal of the appeal / complaint will not preclude the complainant in seeking his remedies before the appropriate forum, other than the consumer forum, for the redressal  of his grievance.

                          Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeal.

            At the time of filing the appeal, appellant has deposited Rs1000/-  before the commission. Release the said amount to the respondents/opposite parties, on filing proper application by them, to be adjusted towards the cost ordered by the district forum.

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

RANJIT.R                 : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NUMBER 203/16

JUDGMENT DATED :23.01.2019