Telangana

Khammam

CC/31/2016

Telagarla Nageswara Rao, S/o. Narayana, Garla Village Mandal, Khammam District - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Nehru Center, Garla Branch, Khammam District - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Mekala Bhaskar Rao

19 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM

 

Dated this, the 19^th day of July,2018.

 

          CORAM:     1. Sri. P. Madhav Raja, _{B.Sc., M.Li.Sc., LL.M.,}– President

2. Sri. R. Kiran Kumar_{, B.Sc., LL.M.} – Member

     

C.C. No. 31/2016

Between:

 

Telagarla Nageswara Rao, S/o. Narayana,

Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agriculture and Business,

R/o. H.No.10-75, Vartakasangam Road,

Garla [V & M], Khammam District.           

        …Complainant

And

          The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Nehru Center, Garla Branch,

Khammam District.       

(Amended as per Order in I.A.No.24/2018, dt:23-02-2018)

                                         …Opposite Party

 

This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Mekala Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for Complainant; and of Sri G.Satya Prasad Advocate for Opposite Party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order;

 

O R D E R

(Per Sri. R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

 

 

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

1.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is agriculturist and he is resident of Garla  Village and Mandal of Khammam District. The complainant is having Saving Bank Account with Opposite Party bearing Bank Account No.52147693387.  On 16-01-2016 he had presented a cheque bearing No.214148, dt:06-01-2016 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Khammam for Rs.10,00,000/- in his account for collection.  The complainant further submitted that after two days, he approached the Opposite Party Bank in order to receive the cheque amount, but the bank Authorities postponed the payment from one pretext or the other.  In this regard the complainant made many rounds to the Opposite Party Bank as and when they demands.   The complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party had issued a letter dt:02-02-2016 to the complainant stating that the said cheque was misplaced by the DTDC Courier Service.  The complainant further submitted that in fact there is no way concerned with courier service, as he presented the said cheque with Opposite Party and the Bank Authorities are sole responsible for the same. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party on 01-03-2016 demanding the Opposite Party bank either to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- or to return the said cheque and the said notice was served on the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party got issued reply notice with false and baseless allegations in order to failed to return the cheque and to avoid the payment, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party as the Opposite Party either to file the said cheque or to pay said cheque amount, for that the complainant filed this complaint.

 

2.       On behalf of the complainant, the complainant filed the following documents and the same were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-5.

 

Ex.A.1         :- is the Photocopy of Cheque dt:06-01-2016.

Ex.A.2:- is the photocopy of Counter foil dt:16-01-2016 issued by

             Opposite Party Bank.

Ex.A.3         :- is the letter issued by Opposite Party Bank to the complainant            dt:02-02-2016

Ex.A.4:- is the Office copy of Legal Notice along with original Postal

             Acknowledgement.  

Ex.A.5:- is the reply notice, dt:13-04-2016.

 

  

3.       On receipt of notice the Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and filed Counter.  In their Counter, the Opposite Party admitted that the complainant has presented the cheque bearing No.214148, dt:06-01-2016 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Khammam for Rs.10,00,000/- for collection.  The Opposite Party further submitted that they  sent the instrument for clearance through DTDC Express Limited Courier Service vide consignment No.H63938370, dt:18-01-2016. The Opposite Party further submitted that thereafter the complainant approached the Opposite Party Bank to know his status, in turn the Bank Officials contacted the Drawee Bank i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Khammam and came to know that the said consignment was not reached to the bank.   Therefore the Opposite Party Bank enquired with the said courier service, who in turn submitted a letter stating that the consignment was missed in transit and all efforts to trace out the consignment in vain.  Further the Opposite Party submitted that he lodged a report before Police concern and the same was informed to the complainant.  The Opposite Party further submitted that the relationship to the Bank when the complainant is principal and agent there was no negligence on the part of Banker and the instrument was sent to the payee bank through recognized a courier service and also the Opposite Party bank acted in good faith and without negligence, as soon as the cheque is reported lost the same was informed to the complainant.  Also submitted that as per the Banks policy on collection of cheques, where the bank is supposed to report loss of cheque in transit within certain number of days enabling the customer to collect duplicate and give instructions to the bank and also submitted that bank cheques collection of policy defines the role of collecting banker and the said incident is extra ordinary event that have occurred, which is beyond the control of the bank.  The Opposite Party bank also submitted that inspite of knowing that the cheque was missed in transit the complainant did not made DTDC courier service as party to the proceedings.   Therefore the complainant is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and the Opposite Party bank not liable to pay the cheque amount and damages, as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 

4.      While the matter is pending, the complainant filed a Petition i.e. I.A.No.24/2018 submitting that recently Opposite Party Bank i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Khammam was merged in State Bank of India, as such prayed to amend the name of the Bank as State Bank of India in the complaint of the Opposite Party and the same was allowed on 23-02-2018.

 

5.      On behalf of Opposite Party no documents filed.

 

6.       Written Arguments of both parties filed.

 

7.       Upon perusing the material papers available on record, now the point that arose for consideration is

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
2. If so, for what relief?

 

POINT NO.I:-

 

 

          In this case the complainant is having Savings Bank Account in Opposite Party Bank bearing Account No.52147693387.  That on 16-01-2016 the complainant had presented a cheque bearing No.214148 dt:06-01-2016 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Khammam for collection.  According to the complainant, he approached the Opposite Party in order to receive the cheque amount, but the bank Authorities postponed the payment and Opposite Party had issued a letter dt:02-02-2016 to the complainant stating therein that the said cheque was misplaced by the DTDC Courier service. After receipt of the letter the complainant issued legal notice to the Opposite Party on 01-03-2016 demanding,  either to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- or to return the said cheque.  The Opposite Party issued a reply with false and baseless allegations. Due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party bank, the complainant suffered mental agony and could not realize the cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, for that he approached the Forum for redressal.

 

          From the documents and material available on record, we observed that even after approach of the complainant the Opposite Party bank failed to pay the cheque amount OR to return the original cheque.   On 02-02-2016 the Opposite Party issued a letter stating that the original cheque was misplaced by the DTDC Courier service.  It is the bounded duty of the Opposite Party to take utmost care towards the instrument and also when the cheque was misplaced during the transit, the Opposite Party bank and the courier service are responsible for the sufferance and loss of the said cheque. From the above, it is a clear case that the Opposite Party bank is responsible for sufferance suffered by the complainant and also for the negligent acts of DTDC courier service.  And also we observed that the Opposite Party bank failed to take steps against the DTDC courier service and it is the plea of Opposite Party bank is that the cheque was misplaced in the transit through DTDC Courier.  The Hon’ble National Commission in State Bank of Patiala  Vs Rajender Lal and Anr. IV 2006 CPJ 53 (NC), in Canara Bank Vs Sudhir Ahuja, I (2007) CPJ 1 (NC) and in Shri A P Bopanna Vs. Kodagu District Central Bank,  R.P.No.05/2005 decided on                   17-02-2008 held that “a Bank on ground of deficiency in service can be burdened with some compensation only but it cannot be made to pay the entire cheque amount”. 

 

          From the material available on record it is clear that the complainant had suffered mentally and monitory loss, keeping in view of the afore mentioned judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission, a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- is considered just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice.   

 

POINT NO.II:-

 

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-  as compensation and also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards costs of complaint.  The Opposite Party bank is directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 19^th day of July, 2018.)

 

 

 

 

      Member                  President             

          District Consumer Forum, Khammam.

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       -None-                                                                       -None-

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

  

Ex.A.1:-	is the Photocopy of Cheque dt:06-01-2016.		Nil
Ex.A.2:-	is the photocopy of Counter foil dt:16-01-2016 issued by Opposite Party Bank.
Ex.A.3:-	is the letter issued by Opposite Party Bank to the complainant                 dt:02-02-2016.		-
Ex.A.4:-	is the Office copy of Legal Notice along with original Postal              Acknowledgement.		-
Ex.A.5:-	is the reply notice, dt:13-04-2016.		-

 

 

 

 

Member                        President

District Consumer Forum, Kammam.