Date of Filing : 24.03.2012
Date of Order : 16.06.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 16th JUNE 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CC No. 47 / 2012
Sri. N. Hari Om,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o. Late K.V. Nagappa,
R/at: No. 428, Sri. Naga Flour Mills,
Tank Road Cross, Bangarpet Town,
Kolar District.
(By Sri. Amaresha, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of Mysore, Kolar Region,
Kolar.
2. The Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
Bangarpet Branch, Kolar Main road,
Bangarpet – 563 114.
(By Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy, Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaint u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1,26,800/- are necessary:-
Complainant is having S.B. Account with OP2 in No. 64017616038. OP1 is the Regional Office with respect to OP2. One Sri. Narayanaswamy has issued Cheque dtd. 10.01.2011 bearing No. 868025 drawn on S.B.M. Mulbagal Branch, Mulbagal in favour of the Complainant. Complainant presented the said Cheque with OP2 on 10.01.2011 for realization. OP2 has not returned the said Cheque nor credited the amount of Rs.80,000/-. Complainant wrote several letters to the OP in this regard on 21.02.2011, 19.08.2011 & 24.12.2011, but the amount has not been credited to his account. Hence the Complaint.
2. In brief the version of OPs are:-
Holding of S.B. Account, depositing of the Cheque, lost of cheque are admitted. OP informed the Complainant to obtain duplicate Cheque from the drawer. Instead of taking the matter with the drawer of the Cheque, Complainant has filed this Complaint. Complainant never stated the Account Number of Narayanaswamy. In the letter, Complainant has not furnished correct Cheque Number. OP is making all efforts to trace the Cheque. Complaint is bad for non joinder & misjoinder of necessary party.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties have filed their respective affidavits & documents. Arguments were heard.
4. Points that arise for our consideration are:
POINTS
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit & documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant is having S.B. Account with OP2 to which OP1 is the Regional Office. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant has deposited Cheque No. 868025 on 10.01.2011 with OP2 issued by one Narayanaswamy drawn on S.B.M., Mulbagal for realization and to credit to his Account. From 10.01.2011 till date OP has never cared to honour the Cheque nor sent it for encashment to Mulbagal Branch nor released the money nor gave any endorsement in this regard. Complainant wrote to OP on 21.02.2011, 19.08.2011 & 24.12.2011, but till date OP never cared to answer the notice or answer the letter at least or retuned the Cheque or credited the amount of Rs.80,000/- to the account of the Complainant.
7. It is also seen that OP1 on 26.12.2011 had intimated the Complainant that they are looking into the matter that’s all. Even thereafter, Ops have not returned the Cheque or credited the amount to the Complainant. This is nothing but deficiency in service. The contention of the Counsel for the OP is that Complainant can obtain duplicate Cheque. That is his outlook and not of the OP. When Cheque has been deposited, Ops are responsible to honour the Cheque or return the Cheque as the case may be. Loosing the Cheque and bagging their tail is nothing but unfair trade practice.
8. Now, we have to see the compensation that is to be paid. Here, Cheque amount cannot be ordered to be ordered. If the Complainant is aggrieved, taking copy of this Order, he can file a suit against Narayanaswamy for recovery of the money or he can seek duplicate Cheque from Narayanaswamy or get the cash from Narayanaswamy, for that, this order will not come in the way. For the negligence of the OP and for the deficiency in service of the OP, if we order Ops to pay certain amount as compensation, that will meet the ends of justice. This is the Law laid down by the Apex Court in the case between the Branch Manager, Federal Bank Limited v/s. N.S. Sabastian in Civil Appeal No. 43/2009 on 07.01.2009 and also Order of this Forum in case between Sri. N. Sriramareddy v/s. Manager, SBM & others in CC No. 55/2006 dtd. 02.04.2007. We are in 2012 and not 2007, when the order of this Forum in the year 2007. Now the value of rupee had come down and value of property has gone high.
9. Hence, under these circumstances, we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. Ops are directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from the date of this Order.
3. Ops are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the litigation to the Complainant.
4. Ops are directed to send amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above within 30 days by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th of June 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
