Date of Filing:16.07.2008<br /> Date of Order:30.10.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1579 OF 2008<br /> <br /> G.N. Shiva Prasad<br /> No. 566, 10th Cross, 15th Main<br /> Padmanabhanagar<br /> Bangalore 70 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Sumathi A.G.<br /> Manager, HDFC Bank<br /> Lourdes School Branch<br /> Cambridge Layout<br /> Bangalore Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that he has received cheque of GBP 1721.40 from UK. He presented the said cheque to the opposite party bank on 10.03.2008. There is no proper response from the bank officials for two months. After long waiting he was told that cheque has been lost. Bank manager by name Sumathi told that cheque was bounced. He called Lloyds Bank in UK to check the status of cheque and he was told that there has been stop payment for the cheque which was not been requested by the complainant and another cheque had been issued to the complainant. The complainant wants a clear picture being given to him why his cheque was bounced and why opposite party asked for stop payment of his cheque on his behalf. He wants this clarification to keep his credit history clean and he wants a statement from the opposite party bank that he was not a defaulter.<br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party bank. Opposite party bank was put in appearance through advocate. A detailed defence version running into 6 pages has been presented explaining all the facts and circumstances of the case.<br /> 3. As per the defence version it is clear that cheque presented by the complainant was either lost or untraceable. Therefore, the opposite party bank had given stop payment instruction and requested for issue of fresh cheque for the same amount to the beneficiary i.e. the present complainant. The opposite party bank submitted that stop payment instruction was beyond the control of opposite party. It is the case of the opposite party that complainant was in receipt of the funds under the cheque and he is not returned the funds. The complainant submitted during the course of hearing that he had received another cheque from his banker and he had withdrawn or received the amount under the said cheque. Therefore, there was no financial loss to the complainant. The only prayer sought by the complainant is that the opposite party bank should give a statement or certificate that he is not a defaulter. On the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the complainant cannot be termed as a defaulter. The cheque presented by the complainant having misplaced or lost by the opposite party bank, it had instructed the banker for stop payment so as to avoid misuse of cheque. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in safe guarding the interest of complainant. On the facts of the case it is clear that cheque presented by the complainant was not bounced as per the defence version. Stop payment and bouncing of cheque cannot go hand in hand. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party bank. With this observation the complaint deserves to be disposed off by directing the opposite party bank to inform the complainant that his cheque No. GBP 1721.40 was not bounced. <br /> 4. The complaint is disposed off. No order as to costs.<br /> 5. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />