<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.03.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON:21.08.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 21ST AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.716/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT G.M.HemvathiW/o.Murthvanjaya,No.50, 2nd Main, 6th Cross,Shivanagar, Rajajinagar,Bangalore – 560 010.Advocate – Sri.D.Surendranath ReddyV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The ManagerState Bank of Mysore,Malleshwaram BranchBangalore –560 003.Advocate – Sri.T.S.Mahabaleswara<br /> <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.5,00,000/- and a cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- 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 /> 2. Complainant deposited the cheque bearing No.77946 dated 30-01-2009 drawn on Citizen Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rajajinagar branch for a amount of Rs.10,00,000/- issued by Smt.Lalitha before the OP Bank. Complainant visited the OP Bank on 03-02-2009 to up date her passbook entries, but to her shock and surprise the said cheque dated 30-01-2009 was not encashed. It was returned dishonored with an endorsement dated 01-02-2009 stating that “payment stopped by drawer.” Then complainant sought for the return of the said cheque. OP on one or the other reason went on postponing to return the said cheque. Ultimately, complainant caused legal notice on 21-02-2009, again there was no response. Due to the hostile attitude of the OP complainant is put to greater hardship and prejudice so also she suffered mental agony and financial loss. Thus she felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. The said cheque which was dishonoured is returned to the representative of the complainant Sri.Shivaraj on production of counter foil of the said cheque. Complainant is aware of the said fact. Complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties like Citizen Co-operative Bank and Smt.Lalitha of M/s.M.S.Engineering. It is further contended at the request of the complainant OP provided the image copy of the cheque from the MICR Center along with cheque returned memo. They are ready to co-operate with the complainant to compell the drawer to issue one more cheque as contemplated under Sec.45 A of NI Act. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations of the complainant are baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. 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 /> 6. 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 /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has got a Savings Bank Account at OP Bank and she deposited cheque bearing No.77946 dated 30-01-2009 for a amount of Rs.10,00,000/- issued by one Smt.Lalitha of M/s.M.S.Engineering. According to the complainant when she went to OP Bank to up date her passbook entries on 03-02-2009 she came to know that the said cheque is not encashed. It was returned with an endorsement of “payment stopped by drawer”. Thus there is a dishonoring of the cheque. Hence she sought for the return of the said cheque. According to the complainant OP failed to return the said cheque inspite of repeated request and demands. Hence she felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is contended by the OP that the complainant and Smt.Lalitha of M/s.M.S.Engineering are the partners of the firm and one partner stopped the payment with respect to cheque drawn in favour of another partner, reasons not known. There appears to be some kind of collusion between two. We find force in the defence of the OP that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties like Smt.Lalitha. What steps the complainant has taken to recover the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- due from M/s.M.S.Engineering to be paid by Smt.Lalitha is not known. Complainant would have initiated the legal action against Smt.Lalitha. But it appears the complainant failed to move the law in to motion in that regard.<br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the OP that they did return the said cheque to the representative of the complainant Sri.Shivaraj, who has shown the counter folio of the said cheque. Complainant has not denied that the said Sri.Shivaraj is in no way connected to with her. The affidavit of Sri.Shivaraj is not filed to deny the said fact. So an adverse inference has to be drawn in that regard. Infact OP has provided image copy of the said cheque from the MICR Center along with cheque return memo. OP has also expressed its ready and willingness to co-operative with the complainant so as to compell the drawer to issue one more cheque under Sec.45 A of NI Act. Why complainant has not opted for the said relief is not known. So viewed from any angle the approach of the complainant rather does not appear to be fair.<br /> <br /> 10. Of course the cheque issued in favour of the complainant for Rs.10,00,000/- so far so good is not misutilized neither that money is drawn by anybody. When that is so, what ever the amount M/s.M.S.Engineering are in due to the complainant may be towards the business profit is intact. Complainant can very well seek for the payment of the said money from Smt.Lalitha. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available at the disposal of the complaint, we do not think the present complaint is maintainable. Some how to the reasons best known to the complainant on some technicalities she want to prosecute the OP. In our view there is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When that is so, OP is not liable to pay neither compensation nor the cheque amount. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />