<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 30th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1458/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.K.M.Raju,Aged 45 years,No.33, Dodda kalasandra,Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 62.Advocate – Sri.Nizam AbbasV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. State Bank Of Hyderabad, J.P Nagar Branch,Represented by its Manager,No.72/1B, K.H Plaza,Jaraganahalli, Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 78.Advocate – Sri.Brijesh Chander Guru2. State Bank of India,Represented by its Manager,C.P.S.L Post Box No.24,G.P.O New Delhi – 110 001.Advocate – Sri.Hemanth<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,90,900/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the credit card holder bearing No.4006 6611 4406 4719 issued by the State Bank of India. He utilized the said card and he was in due of Rs.13,000/- to OP.2. In order to pay the same he purchased one demand draft on 18th July 2007 for Rs.13,000/- from OP.1. He presented the same to OP.2 but OP.2 refused to honor it contending that the said D.D is out dated and date written on the DD is not clear and legible. For no fault of the complainant he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss due to the negligence on the part of both the OP.1 & 2. Then complainant sought for the issuance of the duplicate DD, OP.1 insisted him to execute certain bond and offer surety and instructed him that unless and until he returns the original DD they are not going to issue duplicate. But OP.2 refused to return the original DD to the complainant. Hence complainant is made to move from pillar to post that too for no fault of his. On insistence though OP issued the duplicate DD again it was not accepted by the OP.2 on some grounds saying that it is again out dated without verifying actual date of expiry. Under such circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of both the OP’s. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.1 as per the demand made by the complainant they did issue the DD on 18.07.2007 for Rs.13,000/-. There is nothing wrong. Contention of the complainant that date is misleading is incorrect. Though the said DD has got six months validity, it is not accepted by the OP.2. For that OP.1 can’t be blamed. As per the Banking norms and rules OP.1 directed the complainant to return the original DD and seek for duplicate by way of security. OP has got a right to seek indemnity bond and surety. That act of the OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service. The other allegations made by the complainant are baseless. Rs.13,000/- is still remain unclaimed. So no such monetary loss is incurred by the complainant. OP.1 is ready to cancel the said instrument and refund Rs.13,000/- after making necessary deductions applicable. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> OP.2 filed version mainly contending that the date mentioned in the alleged DD was misleading and it is not clear as well as legible. Hence complainant was informed accordingly. No fault lies with the OP.2 in not honoring the said DD which is incomplete. OP.2 neither received payment with regard to the amount in due from the complainant nor the fresh DD with all better particulars. OP.2 has got a right to recover the balance in due from the complainant. That act of the OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service. Whole of the complaint is devoid of merits. Negligence lies with the complainant in not verifying the date on the said alleged DD. In order to shield his negligence complainant has filed this false case against OP.2. Among these grounds, OP.2 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP have also filed their affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the card holder of OP.2. It is also not at dispute he used the said card and he was in due of Rs.13,000/- to OP.2. To make payment of the said dues he approached OP.1 to issue DD for Rs.13,000/-. He got the DD on 18.07.2007 and presented the same to OP.2. Unfortunately OP.2 refused to honor it on the ground that the said DD issued by the OP.1 is out dated.<br /> <br /> 7. Copy of the DD is produced. We have gone through the said DD. Of course at the column date it is noted 18 !!!! 2007. So with a naked eye it can be seen actual date 18.07.2007 is not mentioned in the DD. That itself amounts to a carelessness and negligence and deficiency in service. The contention of the OP.2 that complainant without verifying the date in the DD by carelessness presented the same does not hold force. The financial institutions like Bank should be more careful and diligent while issuing such an important instrument customers trust them. Their trust and belief should not be exploited.<br /> <br /> 8. Then complainant approached the OP.1 and narrated about the refusal of the DD by the OP.2 on the ground that the date is not legible and it is out dated. The defence of the OP.2 appears to be rather untenable. On what basis OP.2 came to the conclusion that it is out dated is not known. Because the alleged D.D is obtained on 18.07.2007, it is presented on 25.07.2007. Admittedly the said DD has got six months life, within six months this dispute arouse. Hence for this simple reason the defence of the OP.2 also does not hold much force. We find for no fault of the complainant he was made to move from pillar to post from one Bank to another Bank it is unfortunate. OP made the complainant to dance to their tunes.<br /> <br /> 9. Complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP even got issued the legal notice. There was no proper response. On insistence of the OP.1 complainant for no fault of his is made to execute the indemnity bond and offer guarantee bonds. OP.1 directed the complainant to return the original DD given to OP.2 but OP.2 refused to return the same. Then what the complainant has to do, he has become helpless because of the non co-operation and proper assistance from these Banks. All these acts and deeds of both the OP’s speaks loudly about the deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 10. While issuing the duplicate DD also OP.1 is not diligent in mentioning the correct cheque number. Again there is some confusion with record to striking of the old number, insertion of the new number, date etc. The duplicate DD is issued on 03.01.2008 again it is not accepted by the OP.2. Though the said DD is well within expiry period of six months. So taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances we find complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of both the OP’s. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is entitle for certain compensation.<br /> <br /> 11. Of course the right of OP.2 with regard to recovery of the balance in due can’t be curtailed OP.2 can proceed to recover the same in accordance with the law. OP.1 has also undertaken to cancel the said instrument and ready to refund Rs.13,000/-. Under such circumstances no such monetary loss is caused to the complainant. OP.1 has further stated that it will deduct certain charges applicable is strange. The whole confusion and dispute arose because of OP.1’s negligence at inception in not mentioning proper date in D.D but still OP.1 wants to collect the other applicable charges to do the needful. So this kind of attitude of the OP.1 to avail double benefit in our view again amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 12. Viewed from any angle justice will be met by directing both the OP’s to pay some nominal compensation to the complainant with regard to the mental agony suffered by him. Rs.5,000/- from each one of the OP will meet the ends of justice along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- from each OP. Accordingly we answer point No.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 and 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- each and litigation cost of Rs.500/- each to pay the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br />