Karnataka

Kolar

CC/25/2014

K.V. Shashidhar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Mysore, - Opp.Party(s)

D.N.Ramachandrappa

01 Jul 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 06/06/2014

Date of Order: 01/07/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 01^ST DAY OF JULY 2015

PRESENT

Sri. N.B. KULKARNI                                   …….         PRESIDENT

             Sri. R. CHOWDAPPA                                 ……..     MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 25 OF 2014

K.V. Shashidhar,

S/o. late Venkataswamappa,

Aged About 42 Years,

R/at: No.282/2, Kondarapet

Main Road, Chikkaballapur Town,

Chikkaballapur District.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. D.N. Ramachandrappa, Advocate)    ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Branch Manager,

State Bank Of Mysore,

A.P.M.C. Yard Branch,

Besides Agri Gold,

M.G.Road, Chikkaballapur Town,

Chikkaballapur District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. V.Sreedhara Murthy, Advocate)     …. Opposite Party.

 

ORDER ON IA-1 AND ORDER ON MAIN COMPLAINT

 

BY Sri. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought relief of compensation of Rs.7,14,000/- and such other reliefs in accordance with justice together with costs, for being recovered from the OP.

02.   As there is delay of one day IA-1 has been submitted as contemplated Under Section V of the Limitation Act, however it taken as 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Reasons for condoning delay have been assigned in the affidavit of the complainant annexed to this I.A.

03.   The facts in brief:-

It is contention of the complainant that, he had the account with the OP Bank at Chikkaballapur.  And that the cheque bearing No. 060725, dated: 30.11.2011 for Rs.5,14,000/- belonging to IDBI Bank, R.T. Nagar Branch, Bangalore, was presented on 25.05.2012 with the OP Bank, for encashment.  And that on 06.06.2012 the same came to be returned along with a Memo assigning reasons as “RECORD NOT FOUND RELODGE AGAIN”.  And that, this amounted to dereliction of duty and hence deficiency in service.

 

(a)    It is further contended that, as such he is entitled to cheque amount of Rs.5,14,000/- together with Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss in his business, thus the said sum of Rs.7,14,000/-. 

(b)    Along with the complaint he has submitted Xerox copies of the said returned cheque, Bank slip issued by the OP Bank on 25.05.2012, said endorsement issued by the OP Bank on 06.06.2012, Memo in Form No.1370, letter addressed to CCPC, office copy of notice dated: 17.05.2014.

(c)    In the affidavit annexed to the IA-1 it is stated that from 02.06.2014 to 05.06.2014 as he was unwell he could not submit that complaint well in time.  In support of this contention he has submitted Medical Certificate issued by Dr. (Mrs) A.Janaki Anjaneya Swamy, M.B.B.S., Janaki Clinic, 5^th Cross, Magadi Road, Bangalore-23 as issued on 02.06.2014 discloses that, from 02.06.2014 to 05.06.2014 he was under treatment for “Pyrexia” with headache. 

(d)    On presentation of the complaint along with IA-1, the case came to be registered and in response to the notice issued, the OP has put in appearance through the said learned counsel and has preferred objections to the main complaint as well as IA-1.

 

04.   In the objections there is specific contention that complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and there is a denial of contended deficiency in service.  It is also contended that, the complainant submitted the said cheque on 25.05.2012 after lapse of 178 days.  And that as per the guidelines enunciated in Revision Petition No.3990/2011 as per order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, submission of cheques at 11^th hour would disable the complainant to contend that there was delay constituting in deficiency of service.  And that in this context the very complainant himself was to be blamed.  So contending dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been sought.

 

(a)    Objections have been preferred registering IA-1 by denying the cause contended for condonation of delay.

 

(b)    On behalf of the complainant himself submitted affidavit evidence on 17.01.2015 along with following seven documents:-

(1)    Cheque dated: 30.11.2011

(2)    Bank Memo dated: 13.06.2012

(3)    Bank Slip dated: 25.05.2012

(4)    Outward clearing presentation dated: 06.06.2012

(5)    Copy of notice dated: 18.05.2014 along with postal slip

(6)    Postal Acknowledgement

(7)    Medical Certificate dated: 02.06.2014.

 

(c)    Sri.K.D.V. Ramana Murthy, Branch Manager of the OP has submitted his affidavit evidence on 28.03.2015.

05.   On 04.05.2015 the learned counsel appearing for complainant and on 05.05.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the OP has submitted written arguments.  On 11.05.2015 heard the oral arguments as advanced by learned counsel appearing for both sides.  In par in as much as the learned counsel appearing for OP did seek time to continue the arguments.  Thus case came to be adjourned for this purpose on 03.06.2015, 10.06.2015, 16.06.2015 and on 23.06.2015 the time was granted as per the proxy request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the OP.  However on 30.06.2015 as the OP and the learned counsel appearing for the OP remained absent, heard further arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant alone.  On this day the learned counsel appearing for the complainant with Memo has submitted the following citation AIR 2015 SC 321.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration on IA-1 as well as in the main case are:-

1. Whether the delay of one day in submitting the complaint does not deserves to be condoned?

2.   If so, whether OP could be held guilty of deficiency in service?

3.   If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4.   What order?

 

07.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1:  In the Affirmative

 

POINT 2:  In the Affirmative

 

POINT 3: The complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- have to be paid by the OP within 30 days from the date of copy of this order, failing which further the complainant is entitled to recover the said sum together with interest @ 9% pa from 06.06.2014 being the date of the complaint till realization.

 

POINT 4:     As per the final order.

 

REASONS

POINT 1:-

08.   On 02.06.2014 as the complainant was unwell medical certificate has been issued to show that from 02.06.2014 to 05.06.2014 he was down with Pyrexia and headache.  As such he was disabled in submitted this complaint in time.  However the delay is not much.  Hardly it is delay of one day.  On 06.06.2012 the OP has issued endorsement directing the complainant with endorsement as record not found PLz relodge the complaint”.  Therefore the present complaint ought to have been submitted by 05.06.2014.  Whereas it is submitted on 06.06.2014 and hence this delay is condoned.  Even otherwise under any circumstances this delay of one day is bound to be condoned in submission of the main complaint.

POINT 2 & 3:-

09.   To avoid the repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

10.   In the presence of principles enunciated in AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 321 the OP bank cannot disown its statutory duty by contending that submission of complaint was at a 11^th hour i.e., I.A. after 178 days of issuance of the said cheque dated: 30.11.2011.  And for failure of its duty, it cannot blame the complainant as cast un-necessary obligation on him to relodge the cheque.  For, by 06.06.2012 statutory period of six months was over and in case the complainant was to relodge, it could be possible only after getting a second or duplicate cheque from the drawer.  Therefore the OP Bank is completely guilty of deficiency in service while it made such an endorsement.

(a)    At the same time it is to be observed that the complainant cannot be permitted to assert claim to recover the very cheque amount of Rs.5,14,000/- and even claiming for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is on higher side.  However we cannot forget that the complainant has suffered because of deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank and hence he is bound to be awarded with compensation.  We quantify the compensation as at Rs.50,000/- which is certainly a reasonable one. 

POINT 3:-

11.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For the foregoing reasons, the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,500/- as hereunder:-

(a) The complainant is entitled to recover compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the OP.  And the OP shall pay this sum to the complainant within a period of 30 days from receipt of copy of this order, failing which, further the complainant is already entitled to recover the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 06.06.2014 being the date of the compliant till realization.