SRI.R.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> The complainant is having a Saving Bank Account as No.79 in the opposite party's bank named Service Co-operative Bank, Alakkode No.1588, Kalayanthani. The complainant produced a bearer cheque of Rs.40,000/- of the same bank, before the opposite party bank on 29.11.2006. The cheque was in the name of Thomas.T.Onattu. The complainant produced the cheque to encash the cheque amount in the account of the complainant. But the opposite party told the complainant that it needs an endorsement of Thomas.T.Onattu. Again the complainant went over the bank on 30.11.2006 with the endorsement of Thomas.T.Onattu. He approached the Manager of the Kalayanthani Branch, but the manager again told him that there is a technical objection for encashing the money in his account and the complainant asked the manager for getting the objection in writing. But the manager avoided him and told that he has to consult with the legal advisor of the bank and Secretary. Again told him to come come after 10 days and in the meanwhile the Manager can consult with the legal advisor and the Secretary. On 11.12.2006 again the complainant approached the Branch Manager, but the Branch Manager disagreed to the same. Afterwards the complainant constrained to send a lawyer's notice to the opposite party telling all the facts, but no reply was given by the opposite party in time. Thus the complainant filed a petition before this Forum for alleging deficiency in service. The notice was issued on 13.12.2006 and it was received by the opposite party on 15.12.2006. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for compensation under various heads.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party appeared and filed a written statement. The opposite party admitted that the complainant came to the Kalayanthani Branch of the opposite party with a cheque of the same bank named Thomas.T.Onattu in order to encash the amount the the account of the complainant. But the cheque was in the name of Thomas.T.Onattu and so the bank asked him to get the endorsement of his son Thomas.T.Onattu and the complainant went back from the bank. The complainant never came to the opposite party's bank on 13.11.2006 or afterwards with the endorsement of Thomas.T.Onattu. But he shouted on the first day itself telling for getting the cheque encashed in his account without the endorsement. It is absolutely false that the complainant approached the Branch Manager on 13.11.2006 and afterwards. The opposite party replied to the advocate notice received by the opposite party on 25.1.2007. The matter was discussed in the bank Director Board and that is why the notice was delayed. There were several money transactions between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant before this incident and there was a case pending between them for the money transactions. Afterwards the 2nd opposite party and the complainant are keeping enmity with each other. Only because of that enmity this complaint is filed against the opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4(series) were marked on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 (series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- There is no dispute in the matter that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party. The complainant produced a bearer cheque of Rs.40,000/- of the same bank before the opposite party bank on 29.11.2006. The cheque was in the name of Thomas.T.Onattu. The complainant produced the cheque to encash the cheque amount in the account of the complainant. But the opposite party needed the endorsement of “Thomas.T.Onattu” who is the son of the complainant. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant went to the opposite party bank with the said cheque. The only dispute is that whether the complainant was present before the bank on 30.11.2006 with the endorsement of 'Thomas.T.Onattu' on the cheque. As per the evidence of Complainant, PW1 an 88 years old man, delivered that he went to the opposite party bank several times with the endorsement of his son 'Thomas.T.Onattu' but the opposite party was not ready to account the amount in his account, they told him that there is some technical objection for the same. But they were not ready to give the objection in writing. The complainant afterwards constrained to send an advocate notice to the opposite party on 13.12.2006. Ext.P1 is the office copy of the same. It was received by the opposite party on 15.12.2006. Ext.P3 is postal AD card of the same. But the opposite party never replied for the same and so the complaint was filed. After filing the complaint the opposite party replied stating that they are ready to encash the cheque if there is an endorsement. As per the complaint the the opposite party deliberately avoided the complainant several times. If the opposite party was ready to encash and transfer the money in the account of the complainant they ought to have replied for the lawyer's notice issued by the complainant within the specific time. As per the version of the Secretary of the opposite party bank who was examined as DW1, the matter was not taken as a serious one. There was no seriousness found by the opposite party in the complainant's matter. Ext.P2 the copy of the cheque produced by the complainant is duly endorsed by “Thomas.T.Onattu”. So we think that, if the cheque was not endorsed, that matter should have replied in the advocate notice within specific time. But no reply notice was given within specific time. They have replied only after a complaint was filed before the Forum. Ext.R1(b) the postal AD card of the reply notice produced by the opposite party shows that the reply notice was received only on 1.02.2007. A notice was issued to the bank stating the deficiency in service of the bank by an eighty eight years old man, was not taken as a serious matter by the Secretary of the opposite party. It is a gross deficiency in the part of the bank. So we think that it is fit to give a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant considering his age, for his mental agony and suffering and also Rs.2,000/- for inconvenience due to non-payment of Rs.40,000/- in due time. And also Rs.2,000/-for the cost of this petition.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and also Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the Ist day of July, 2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />