Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/55

MANAGER, CANARA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH BABU V G - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 55/15

JUDGMENT DATED:24.01.2017

 

PRESENT:

 

HON. JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q.BARKATHALI                 :  PRESIDENT

 

 

Manager,

Canara Bank, Main Branch,

Round South, Thrissur.                                                    : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. G.S. Kalkura)

 

            Vs.

 

1. Suresh Babu V.G,

S/o Gopalan, Vanneri House,

P.O. Kanjani, Thrissur.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Unnikrishnan.V)

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2. Manager,

South Indian Bank Ltd.,

Kanjani, Thrissur.

 

(By Adv: Sri. R.S. Mohanan Nair)

 

JUDGMENT

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in CC.439/10 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 15, 2014 directing the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/- for the alleged deficiency of service on their part.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

 The complainant had a savings bank account with the 2^nd opposite party bank.  Complainant issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- to one Tina Figi, Mambilly House, Naithukudi, Mala on May 03, 2010.  He had entrusted the cheque with the 2^nd opposite party bank for collection on May 08, 2010.  On July 22, 2010 complainant received a letter from the 2^nd opposite party bank that cheque was sent for collection to the 1^st opposite party bank which was dishonoured for want of insufficiency of funds in the account of the complainant and that the said cheque was lost.  Therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Complainant filed the complaint claiming the cheque amount and compensation.

3.      First opposite party is the Manager, Canara Bank main branch, Thrissur.  He in his version before the Forum admited the loss of cheque but contended that the cheque was returned for insufficiency of funds which was intimated to the 2^nd opposite party bank.

4.      Second opposite party is Manager, South Indian Bank, Kanjani, Thrissur.  He in his version contended that as the cheque was lost from the 1^st opposite party bank, they are not liable.

5.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked and RW1 was examined on the side of the opposite parties before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-.  First opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

6.      Heard both the counsels.

7.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/1^st opposite party?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Forum is excessive?

 

8.      It is admitted by the opposite parties that the cheque entrusted with the 2^nd opposite party which was sent for collection to 1^st opposite party bank was lost.  It is also proved by the evidence adduced on the part of the complainant, which is clear deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

9.      Forum awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/- which appears reasonable.  I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

 

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q.BARKATHALI :  PRESIDENT

 

 

VL.

 

sans-serif"'>VL.