C.C. No. 11 of 2009th May 2009 C.C. No. 11 of 2009 C.C. No. 11 of 2009

4

presented to be credit to the account No. 17814 of the complainant. Ex. A2 is the

Xerox copy of representation dt. 28-9-2007 of the complainant addressed to the

Banking Ombudsman, Hydeabad. Ex. A3 is the carbon copy of legal notice, dt.

14-2-2008 issued to the respondent along with postal receipt No. 714. Ex. A4 is the

original Postal acknowledgement dt. 16-2-2008 signed by the respondent Bank. Ex.

B1 is the Xerox copy of reply notice dt. 17-7-2008. Ex. B2 is the Xerox copy of

extract of local tappals book page 40 & 41.

7. As could be seen from the documentary evidence on records it is a fact

that the complainant presented the cheque in question for Rs. 15,000/- o n

16-9-2006. This is supported by Ex. A1 original credit voucher issued by the

respondent Bank. Ex. B2 i.e. local tappals book maintained by the respondent Bank

The respondent contended that the respondent bank took the signature of the

complainant on Ex. B2 in token of personally delivering the dishonoured cheque in

question to him. The signatures of the complainant found on the complaint, affidavit

and Vakalath are quite different with that of the signature of the complainant found

on Ex. B2. In fact it is not a signature. It appears to us that under the head

“signature of the party” “P” like letter is found which is no where tallies with the

signature of the complainant. The contention of the respondent that the dishonoured

cheque in question was personally delivered to the complainant after obtaining his

signature on Ex. B2 appears to be not genuine. When the cheque was presented on

16-9-2006 for clearance the respondent bank alleged to have returned the

dishonoured cheque on 4-12-2006 with an abnormal gap of about 4 months.

Normally collection of cheques from other banks generally consume a week or two

and not more than that. The complainant also denied the receipt of dishonoured

cheque and also denied his signature on Ex. B2. At any point of time the respondent

bank failed to convenience this forum that the dishonoured cheque in question was

delivered to the complainant under acknowledgement is true. In fact the respondent

DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA

PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L.,

SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

Thursday, 7

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 11 / 2009

M. Hari Bhaskar Reddy, S/o Subbi Reddy, aged 45 years,

Hindu, Kapu Business, Residing at D.No. 3/501, Y.M.R Colony,

Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa Dist. ….. Complainant.

Vs.

Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Proddatur town and Mandal, Kadapa district. ….. Respondent.

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 4-5-2009 in the

presence of Sri P. Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri M. Sudhakar

Reddy, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record,

the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri S. Abdul Khader Basha, Member),

1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the

resident of Proddatur doing business in Finance besides selling the paddy and

agricultural produce. The complainant has got good faith on the respondent bank

and also about knowing its good will in the society lending better good services to its

customer, as such the complainant opened an S.B. Account No. 17814 in the

respondent bank and making transactions by maintaining good balance. While so on

16-9-2006 the complainant presented a cheque for Rs. 15,000/- bearing cheque No.

3397 with the respondent bank drawn on Canara Bank, Secunderabad and

immediately after receipt of the said cheque the respondent bank issued a counter

foil of the credit voucher duly signed by the concerned section officer of the

respondent bank. Thereafter the complainant requested about the collection of the

cheque and also non adjustment of the said cheque after duly collecting from the

drawee bank. For which the respondent bank authorities saying cock and bull

2

stories since 16-9-2006. Finally the complainant demanded the respondent to give

proper reply in writing about the non collection of the cheque amount of Rs. 15,000/-

and the respondent bank authorities gave evasive replies. The complainant also

addressed a requisition to its higher authorities for taking further action in non –

receipt of the above referred cheque. But there is no response from the higher

authorities of the respondent bank. The complainant gave legal notice and they

acknowledged the legal notice dt. 14-2-2008 on 16-2-2008. But failed to render the

service to its customers and there is deficiency of service to its customers including

the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint with a request to

direct the respondent to pay Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16-9-2006 till

the date of realization, to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony

and costs of the complaint.

3. The respondent filed a counter stating that the complaint is bard by

limitation and not maintainable in the interest of justice and that the complainant

presented the subject cheque in the bank on 16-9-2006 and the same was sent for

collection and the same was dishonored by the other bank. The accused bank

returned the said cheque to the complainant on 4-12-2006 when he visited the Bank

after obtaining his signature in the concerned register maintained by the Bank. As

such the transaction pertaining to the cheque was closed on 4-12-2006 but the

complainant preferred a complaint to Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad on

28-9-2006. The respondent submitted its reply stating that the dishonoured cheque

was returned to the complainant and the case was closed by the banking

Ombudsman. Again the complainant gave a notice to the respondent bank

demanding for the return of subject cheque for which the Branch Manager of the

bank gave reply stating that they have already returned the cheque. But the

complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 14-2-2008 demanding for the return of

cheque. The respondent got issued reply notice explaining the facts on 17-7-2008.

1

3

The complainant visited the Bank on 13-1-2007 and deposited a Demand Draft for

Rs. 843,831/- and purchased a draft for Rs. 38,404/- on the same day and again

visited on 16-1-2007 and withdrawn Rs. 46,000/- and again on 6-2-2007 presented

a cheque for Rs. 8,807/- and visited on 13-7-2007 deposited a cash of Rs. 13,000/-

again on 4-3-2008 presented a cheque in his account for collection of Rs. 22,500/- in

all this occasions he never met the Branch Manager and made complaint about the

cheque. The respondent stated that the dishonoured cheque was returned to the

complainant on 4-12-2006 and the respondent has no any malafide intentions to give

false reply to the complainant. The respondent has no necessity to retain the cheque

with him. The complainant with malafide intention to have a wrongful gain filed this

complaint. In that process he issued unnecessary notice to the respondent to show

that the matter is pending for all these days in fact that the subject matter was

closed on 4-12-2006 when the cheque was returned by the Bank, as such this

complaint was barred by limitation. The respondent requested this forum to dismiss

the complaint in the interest of justice.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

ii. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the

respondent?

iii. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of

the respondent Ex. B1 & B2 were marked. Oral arguments were heard from both

sides.

6. Point Nos. 1& 2. Ex. A1 is the original credit voucher issued by the

respondent bank dt. 16-9-2006 in respect of cheque for Rs. 15,000/- bearing No.

3397 drawn in favour of the complainant on Canara Bank, M.G. Road, Secunderabad