Complaint filed on: 06.10.2015
Complaint Disposed on:15.03.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.129/2015
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri.H.C.Basavaraj
S/o Late H.R Chandregowda,
A/a 52 years, R/o Kesarike,
Hosallipet Post,
Chikmagalur Taluk & Dist.
(By Sri/Smt. K.V.Mahabala, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
I.G Road, Chikmagalur.
2. The Chief Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
I.G Road Branch,
Chikmagalur.
(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. Halekote A Thejaswi, Advocate)
(OP No.2 By Sri/Smt. T.C.Shivashankara, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 & 2 in not returning the amount of Rs.68,346/- which was wrongly debited from his account. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay the said amount along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 16.10.2014 till realization and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is a account holder at Op no.2- bank and he lost the cheque bearing no.067768 for Rs.68,346/-, but complainant had not mentioned the name of the bearer and date in the said cheque. Thereafter on 16.10.2014 the said cheque was presented from unknown person for encashment at Op no.1-bank by mentioning self withdrawal, first Op after receipt of the cheque had sent for clearance to Op no.2- bank and Op no.2 bank without verifying the said cheque had cleared and amount was debited from the complainant’s account. Thereafter Op no.1 bank after receipt of the said amount have kept the said amount at suspense account for the reason that the bearer name was not mentioned in the said cheque.
During the month of June 2015 the complainant took the statement of account from his S/B account from Op no.2 bank and noticed that the said cheque was encashed by unknown person and an amount of Rs.68,346/- was debited. Immediately he approached the Op no.2 bank and requested to re-credit the said amount to the complainant’s account, but Ops have not credited the said amount to the complainant’s account. Thereafter, having no option complainant issued a legal notice dated 30.07.2015 and called upon them to repay the said amount, even inspite of receipt of the legal notice also Ops have neither replied nor complied the notice. Hence complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1 & 2 bank for not repaying the said amount. Hence, prays for direction against Op no.1 & 2 to pay the said amount along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op no.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version.
4. OP no.1 in his version has contended that the complainant is not the customer of this Op bank, he is not having any account with this Op. On 16.10.2014 the cheque bearing no.067768 was presented to this Op bank for encashment and in turn this Op has sent the said cheque for clearance to Op no.2 bank and Op no.2 bank had cleared the same without verification. This Op transferred the said cheque amount to suspense account/Sundry Creditors account as the bearer name was not mentioned in the said cheque. This Op kept the said amount in sundry creditors for want of claim from genuine person.
This Op is ready to return the said cheque amount of Rs.68,346/- if the complainant executes an indemnity bond for the said amount in favour of this Op. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Op and there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and this Op. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Op no.2 in his version has contended that the complainant is a account holder in their bank, but they do not know the complainant has lost the cheque bearing no.067768 for Rs.68,346/-, however on 16.10.2014 the said cheque was brought for collection through Op no.1 bank for clearance, since the said cheque sent through Op no.1 bank in a good faith, this Op no.2-bank had cleared the cheque and proceeds of the said cheque was debited to the complainant’s account and it is learnt that the first Op has kept the said amount in a suspense account because bearer name was not mentioned in the said cheque. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service or latches on the part of this Op bank.
Op no.2 further contended that even today if Op no.1 re-transfers the said amount to this bank, this Op will credit the said amount to the account of the complainant, hence, there is no cause of action arose in the complaint against this Op and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.4 Op No.1 & 2 also filed affidavit and produced memo with documents.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
10. There is no dispute that complainant is an account holder of Op no.2-bank and a cheque stands in the name of complainant was tendered for the realization at Op no.2-bank through Op no.1 bank on 16.10.2014. After receipt of the said cheque Op no.2 had without verifying the bearer name and other details has simply cleared the cheque for Rs.68,346/- and same was debited from the account of the complainant. After receipt of the clearance from Op no.2-bank, Op no.1 bank had kept the said amount in a suspense account as there was no bearer name found in the cheque. The complainant only came to know about the realization of the cheque only when he verified the statement of account of the S/B account. We noticed here that the complainant himself is negligence in keeping his cheque leaf in safe custody, apart from that we also noticed that there was a negligence on the part of Op no.2 in honoring the cheque without verifying bearer name, signature, etc., but the Op no.2 in his version and affidavit have contended that they have passed the cheque on good faith, but we are of the opinion that the Op no.2-bank should not believe on the good faith while transaction of day-to-day activities of the bank before passing any cheque, Op no.2 bank should always verify the bearer names, signature, date, amount, etc., if it was passed without verification definitely it amounts to a deficiency in service. In this case also Op no.2-bank rendered deficiency in service in clearing the cheque which is not having bearer name. Fortunately Op no.1-bank had kept the amount after realization in suspense account and we noticed that Op no.1-bank had demanded for indemnity bond from complainant in order to realize the said amount into his account, the request made by Op no.1-bank is correct, because the complainant no way has transacted with Op no.1-bank, they have kept the said cheque amount of Rs.68,346/- under suspense account. In order to know that the said amount belongs to complainant the indemnity bond is very much required and we found no deficiency in service or irregularity on the part of Op no.1-bank in demanding for indemnity bond from the complainant. Hence, it is only a negligence on the part of Op no.2-bank which have wrongly without verifying the cheque have honored and sent the cheque amount to Op no.1-bank. Hence, we are of the opinion that Op no.2-bank is only liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service in honoring the cheque along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is further directed to execute indemnity bond in favour of Op no.1-bank in order to receive the said amount and Op no.1-bank is directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.68,346/- after obtaining indemnity bond from the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- OP Nos.1-bank is directed to pay an amount of Rs.68,346/- by receiving indemnity bond from the complainant to that effect.
- Op no.2-bank is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand Rupees only) for deficiency in service along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand Rupees only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 15th day of March 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Copy of the cheque presented to Op bank.
Ex.P.2 - Letter issued by complainant to Op dtd:30.07.15.
Ex.P.3 - Certificate issued by Op bank dtd:28.07.15.
Ex.P.4 - Statement of loan account.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
NIL
Dated:15.03.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
