Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/125

the manager federal bank ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

sudha k r - Opp.Party(s)

s reghukumar

09 Sep 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.125/15

JUDGMENT DATED: 09.09.2016

(Appeal filed againt the order in CC.No.73/2014 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad order dated : 15.12.2014)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

APPELLANT

The Manager,

Federal Bank Ltd,

Pattambi Branch,

Pattambi

 

(By Adv.Sri.S.Reghukumar)

 

RESPONDENTS

1.Sudha.K.R

W/o.T.P.Satheeshkumar,

Karippottil House,

Vadanakurissi Post,

Ottappalam Taluk,

Palakkad – 679 124

 

2.The Manager,

LIC of India,

Ottappalam – 679 101

 

3.The Post Master,

Head Post Officer,

Ottappalam – 679 101

 

4.The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Ongallur Branch,

Kalladipatta Post,

Ottappalam Taluk – 679 313

 

5. The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Pattambi Branch,Pattambi

 

6.Sudha.K

W/o.Unnikrishnan,

Melepurath House,

Vadanakurissi Post,

Shornur Via

 

(R1 by Adv.Smt.J.P.Sandhya)

(R3 by authorised agent Sri.Sandeep.R.P)

(R4 & R5 by Adv.Sri.H.Josh)

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

        Appellant is opp.party no.5 in CC.No.73/2014 in the CDRF, Palakkad. The complainant / first respondent had availed a money back policy from the first opp.party, Life Insurance Corporation. As per the terms of the policy she was entitled to money back of Rs.15, 000/- as on 23.02.2010. She approached the first opp.party and on enquiry it was revealed that cheque for the amount was already issued in the name of the complainant. But she never received the cheque by post. After persistent efforts and after enquiry with the second opp.party, the post master head post office, Ottappalam the complainant was told that the postal article addressed to her was delivered on 27.03.2010. But the complainant did not get the cheque issued to her. The first opp.party took no steps to redress the grievance of the complainant. The second opp.party reported that documents relating to this postal article were not available since the period up to which these documents were to be preserved was over. On 04.01.2013, first opp.party after enquiry with the third opp.party informed the complainant that one Sudha.K, wife of Unnikrishnan, Melepurathu House, Vadanamkurissy post had collected the amount on 30.03.2010. Since the first opp.party failed to take any further step the complainant approached the consumer forum. It was revealed that the second opp.party without confirming the identity of the addressee delivered the registered postal cover to a wrong addressee. Sudha.K, the sixth opp.party to whom the postal article was delivered put the cheque for collection in the State Bank of India, Pattambi Branch, the fourth opp.party and amount was collected from the fifth opp.party the Federal Bank, Pattambi Branch. According to the complainant by disbursing the amount without confirming the identity of the drawee of the cheque, the banks have also committed deficiency in service.

        2.     Before the consumer forum opp.parties 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 filed separate version. The first opp.party admitted that the complainant had availed money back LIC policy from the first opp.party and Rs.15,000/- was due to the complainant on 23.03.2010. Cheque dated 23.03.2010 for Rs.15,000/- was drawn on the Federal Bank, Ottappalm Branch in favour of Sudha.K.R the complainant and was despatched in her address by registered post. That cheque was encashed on 30.03.2010. Complainant sent letter dated 15.09.2011complaining that she had not received the first instalment of survival benefit till then. On enquiry, the second opp.party told the first opp.party that the registered article was delivered to the addressee on 27.03.2010. That information was conveyed to the complainant. The first opp.party had contacted opp.parties 3 to 5 which revealed that the cheque was encashed by the sixth opp.party Sudha.K, wife of Unnikrishnan, Melepurathu House, Vadanamkurissy through her account on 30.03.2010. The first opp.party sent letter to the sixth opp.party intimating that the cheque was not intended to be delivered to her. But that letter was returned unclaimed. It was the second opp.party who committed deficiency in service by delivering the registered article to a wrong addressee. The third opp.party permitted encashment of the account payee crossed cheque in favour of Sudha.K.R, the complainant through a different account of the sixth opp.party without verifying the payees name in the cheque. There was wilful default on the part of the third opp.party also.

        3.     The second opp.party contended that the complaint was barred by limitation. The period of preservation of documents relating to delivery of registered letters at a branch office is two years. Since that period is over the records pertaining to the disputed postal article were not available. Apart from the complainant another person named Sudha, Karipottil House, Vadanakurissy is also residing in that area. Due to the above reason the registered letter addressed to the complainant was delivered to the other addresse. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the second opp.party.

        4.     The third opp.party admitted that the sixth opp.party had an account with the third opp.party but she dropped the cheque addressed to the complainant for clearance at Pattambi Branch of the State Bank of India (4^th opp.party). The cheque was sent for collection to the fifth opp.party Federal Bank, Pattambi Branch on 30.03.2010 and amount was credited to the account of the sixth opp.party. The third opp.party came to know of all these transactions only when the first opp.party intimated the same. There upon without delay the third opp.party made enquiry and on detecting the mistake immediately contacted the sixth opp.party. She agreed to repay the amount and the same was conveyed through the first opp.party. The third opp.party recovered Rs.15,000/- covered by the cheque from the sixth opp.party and issued demand draft for the amount on 10.04.2014 in favour of the Chief Manager, LIC of India, Ottappalam Branch and sent the DD to the first opp.party by registered post. The first opp.party had accepted the demand draft.

        5.     According to the fourth opp.party they had sent the cheque only for clearance by the fifth opp.party since the cheque was dropped at the fourth opp.party bank. The sixth opp.party brought the cheque for collection at the fourth opp.party bank with ulterior motive to avoid chance of detection of difference in the initials of the customer and to get the cheque cleared. The fourth opp.party was not aware of the trap made by the sixth opp.party as they were ignorant where she held the account.

        6.     It is seen that the sixth opp.party had filed version though not referred to in the order of the consumer forum. She claimed that she had also availed a policy from the first opp.party. The house name of the father of the sixth opp.party is karippottil. On 27.03.2010 the postman brought a cheque for Rs.15,000/- in the name of Sudha.K and the sixth opp.party received the same, bonafide believing that the cheque was intended to be delivered to her. But after four years the third opp.party informed the sixth opp.party that the cheque was intended to be delivered to the complainant. Accordingly, the sixth opp.party remitted the amount back in the same bank from where the cheque was cashed. The sixth opp.party never intended to cheat or defraud the complainant.

        7.     Before the consumer forum the complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the complainant. The opp.parties is adduced no oral evidence but marked Exts.B1 to B13 on their side. As per the impugned order the consumer forum exonerated opp.parties 3 & 6 from liability. But allowed the complaint as against the remaining opp.parties finding deficiency in service on their part. They were saddled with liability to pay Rs.6000/- each. Only the fifth opp.party has come up with this appeal. No other opp.party has challenged the order of the consumer forum. We were told that in fact they had complied the order of the consumer forum as against them.

        8.     The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is reason to hold that the fifth opp.party is liable to be exonerated from liability.

        9.     After the filing of versions by the opp.parties the following facts are admitted. The complainant had availed money back LIC policy from the first opp.party and towards survival benefit as on 23.03.2010, the first opp.party sent by registered post cheque for the said amount copy of which is Ext.B10 and the cheque was encashed on 30.03.2010. It appears that the second opp.party postal authority delivered the cheque to the sixth opp.party instead of the complainant.  The names of the complainant and sixth opp.party were the same but the initials were different. The complainant is Sudha.K.R but the sixth opp.party is Sudha.K. On receipt of the cheque the sixth opp.party who held account with the third opp.party dropped the cheque for collection with the fourth opp.party. The cheque was drawn on the Federal Bank and it was sent for collection to the fifth opp.party branch of the Federal Bank. The amount was duly accounted in the account of the sixth opp.party. Later based on the complaint of the complainant and at the initiative of the first opp.party the third opp.party recovered the amount from the sixth opp.party which was duly sent to the first opp.party. The consumer forum rightly exonerated the sixth opp.party from liability as no consumer relationship existed between the complainant and the sixth opp.party though it was apparent that she was aware that the cheque was intended to be delivered to a different person and the ulterior motive of the sixth opp.party was evident by the fact of dropping the cheque for collection in a bank in which she had no account. The addresses of the complainant and the sixth opp.party were different though there was some similarity between the address of the complainant and the address of the father of the sixth opp.party. Obviously after marriage she was residing in a different address. The consumer forum exonerated the third opp.party from liability as they had no chance to process the cheque. The second opp.party by delivering the postal article to a different person surely committed deficiency in service. The first opp.party prepared the cheque and despatched the same in the correct address of the complainant but the trouble was started by the second opp.party. But there was laches on the part of the first opp.party in promptly solving the complaint raised by the complainant and it was after a long effort she could get the amount legitimately due. Both the fourth and fifth opp.parties had occasion to process the disputed cheque and they failed to notice the difference in the initials of the person who wanted to collect the amount. It was accordingly, fourth and fifth opp.parties were made liable. Where as the fourth opp.party has not preferred any appeal, the fifth opp.party has come up with the appeal mainly on the ground that specimen signature of the drawee of the cheque was not available with them for comparison.

        10.   So the précise contention raised by the appellant fifth opp.party is that they honoured the cheque on finding that it was issued by the first opp.party their customer. The complainant as well as the sixth opp.party were not the account holders of the sixth opp.party. So their specimen signatures were not available for comparison. But the initials of the complainant are found in Ext.B10. Ext.B10 was an account payee crossed cheque. So had the fifth opp.party exercised due diligence and contacted the bank which sent the cheque for collection they would have collected the name of the account holder namely the sixth opp.party which would have showed that the cheque was presented by Sudha.K and not Sudha.K.R in whose name the cheque was drawn. So it cannot be said that the fifth opp.party exercised due diligence before honouring the cheque .So we find no error in the conclusion of the consumer forum that the fifth opp.party had also committed deficiency in service.

        In short, the appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

K.CHNADRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

A.RADHA : MEMBER

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.125/15

JUDGMENT DATED: 09.09.2016

 

 

                                                                         BE/