Karnataka

Kolar

CC/19/2014

Sri.B.Naresh Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Mysore - Opp.Party(s)

H.V.Krishna Gowda

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 06/05/2014

Date of Order: 15/07/2015

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

 

Dated: 15^th DAY OF JULY 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 19 OF 2014

Sri. B. Naresh Babu,

S/o. B. Srinivasalu,

Aged About 44 years,

Veeranna Compound,

Door No.2, Veeranjaneya Nagar,

Beside Agro Office,

Kolar-563 101.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. H.V. Krishne Gowda, Advocate)     ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Manager,

State Bank Of Mysore,

Kolar Branch, Kolar-563 101.

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

 

-: ORDER :-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought reliefs of recovery of Rs.54,000/- together with interest, as well, Rs.10,000/- by way of damages and costs from the OP.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

It is contention of the complainant that, for the business of Akshaya Info Solutions he had carried on with Codegreen Techsol Partnership firm, its partner Sri. S.S. Koushik had issued a cheque for Rs.54,000/-.  And that he having S.B. account bearing No.64107057803 with the OP had submitted the said cheque bearing No.094688, dated: 04.12.2013 for encashment on 28.02.2014.  And that the OP had credited the said sum on 04.03.2014 in his said account and debited on the same day contending Instrument Out-Dated/stale.  And that, that amounted to deficiency in service.  And that he got issued notice dated: 12.03.2014.  And that the OP having received the notice remained silent.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand to seek the above reliefs.

 

03.   Along with the complaint with a list dated: 06.04.2014 the complainant has submitted following five documents:-

1.      Xerox copy of cheque

2.      Xerox copy of chellan

3.      Xerox copy of account statement

4.      Office copy of legal notice

5.      Served postal acknowledgement.

 

04.   The OP has put-in written version resisting the averments made in the complaint leading to the said claim.  It is contended that the complainant was not a Consumer.  And that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of un-necessary parties.  However it is conceded that on 28.02.2014 the said cheque was presented.  Further it is contended that, such presentation was at 11^th hour.  And that only four days were left for expiry of the said cheque for clearance.  And that as per the principles enunciated in Revision Petition No.3990/2011 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the very complainant was to be blamed.  And that under the circumstances there could be no deficiency of service.  Thus dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been sought.

 

05.   The very complainant did submit his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  Sri. C. Kamalakar, the Assistant Manager of the OP has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  On 08.04.2015 the learned counsel appearing for complainant did submit written arguments; on 05.05.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the OP did submit written arguments.  On 14.07.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the OP did submit a Memo with Xerox copy of the case law being the decision in Revision Petition No.3990/2011 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, on 13.01.2013.  As on this day the learned counsel appearing for the complainant had remained absent; there could be no oral arguments on behalf of the complainant.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has been able to establish that, he was a Consumer as envisaged Under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 so as to raise the present dispute?

2.   If so, whether the complainant has been successful in establishing that, the OP was guilty of deficiency in service?

3.   What order?

 

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

POINT No.1:    In the Affirmative

POINT No.2:    In the Negative

POINT No.3:    As per the final order

                        for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

08.   Indisputably the complainant is a customer of the OP as he had/has S.B. Account bearing No.64107057803.  Since it is the contention of the complainant that, on presentation of the said cheque, the OP was deficient in its service, the truth of the allegation shall have to be gone in to, thus the complainant being consumer could raise this dispute.

 

(a)    The OP has taken up contention that, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of un-unnecessary parties.  The OP is a necessary party.  Therefore the contention of the OP in this context is unmerited.  So it needs no further consideration.

 

POINT No.2:-

09.   However being a Consumer, only raising a dispute is not enough to get relief, for, the complainant shall have to establish through necessary evidence that, the OP was guilty of deficiency in service.  For the reasons to be stated, evidence is absolutely wanting.

 

(a)    The complainant has made mountain a mole-hill, by placing reliance on the entry maintained by the OP in the said account on 04.03.2014.  It is true on this day the OP credited the said sum of Rs.54,000/- in pursuance of the said cheque and on the very next movement it debited the same by holding that, the instrument was out dated/stale.  It is nothing but correction of the error which is legally permissible.

 

(b)    It cannot be forgotten that, the said cheque dated: 04.12.2013 drawn by the partner of the said firm was issued by IDBI Bank Branch, Bangalore being the payee bank.  Presentation of the said cheque was certainly at 11^th hour i.e., on 28.02.2014.  Hardly three days were left for getting clearance of this cheque by the payee bank located in Bangalore, whereas the OP is having the branch at Kolar.  Certainly during the transit itself this instrument had become out-dated/staled.  Therefore such a rectification carried in the pass-book by the OP is absolutely justified in view of the principles enunciated in the order dated: 13.01.2013 in Revision Petition No.3990/2011 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, as relied by the learned counsel appearing for the OP.

 

POINT No. 3:-

10.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons, the complaint stands dismissed, however with a direction to both the parties to bear their own costs.

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 15^th DAY OF JULY 2015)

 

 

 

 

                                     MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT