BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SHRI. P. SUDHIR                                :         PRESIDENT

SMT. SATHI. R                                   :         MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                            :         MEMBER

                                              C.C.No: 53/2011     Filed on 26/02/2011 

                                           Dated: 12..07..2016

Complainant:

Dinesh B. Panicker, Renfrew Cottage, 3, U.S. Road, Near Police Head Quarters, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

                    (By Adv. K. Krishna Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1.  The Branch Manager, The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., 15/24, Samarth Vaibhav, Off New Link Road, Versova (Oshinwara), Andheri (W), Mumbai.      

2. Manager, The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram Branch, Pazhavangadi, Thiruvananthapuram.

          (By Adv. P. Balakrishnan)

This C.C having been heard on 06..01..2016, the Forum on 12..07..2016  delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

          The complainant is an account holder of the opposite party bank since 2004 vide A/c No.SB 478. The complainant carries out his money transactions with opposite party bank since 2004. On 21/03/2009 the complainant issued a cheque drawn on Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Versova Branch, bearing No. 113409 for Rs. 750/- in favour of Hon. Secretary, Golf Club, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant issued the cheque after confirming that there is sufficient funds in his account. Later the complainant received a letter from Golf Club that the cheque issued by the complainant had bounced and the reason for return was “Account closed”. And the complainant was listed as a defaulter in the notice board. The complainant was shocked to know that the cheque issued by him has bounced for the reason “Account closed”. This incident lowered his dignity and caused loss of reputation among the members of Golf Club. The complainant enquired about the account maintained by him with the opposite party bank and was shocked to see that the SB account maintained by him is still active and had a balance of Rs.46,242/- as on 21/03/2009, the date on which the complainant issued the above said cheque in favour of Golf Club. Because of the irresponsibility and negligence of the opposite party bank the complainant was caused to suffer untold mental agony as it has resulted loss of reputation and defamation to the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party bank amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant is left with no other alternative than to approach this Forum to redress his grievances and hence this complaint is necessitated.

          2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contending that this complaint lacks of territorial jurisdiction since no alleged transaction has taken in Thiruvananthapuram even though there is an office of the opposite party in Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint should be filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mumbai where the alleged cause of action has taken place and the alleged cheque presented throuh Worli Branch for encashment. The S.B account bearing No. 478 is being maintained at Versova Branch. So this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. It is true that the complainant is an account holder of the 1^st opposite party branch. On enquiry, it is revealed that the complainant had issued a cheque for Rs. 750/- in favour of ‘The Secretary, Golf Club, Thiruvananthapuram’. Further it is learnt from Regional Collection Centre (RCC), Mumbai that the said cheque was presented for payment on 05/04/2009 to Worli, as per the practice in Vogue. The concerned officials inadvertently due to oversight viewed the account of the Business Unit Bandra having SOL ID: 0446 instead of the 1^st opposite party’s SOL ID: 0445 and have returned the cheque as the SB account No. 478 of the Business Unit Bandra was closed on that day. The Branch officials of the 1^st opposite party could not contact the client as he was in Thiruvananthapuram. However, the Branch officials discussed the issue and tendered apology for the inconvenience caused to him and assured to him that as desired, the Branch Officials will take up the matter with the beneficiary of the cheque. But he demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. However, the 1^st opposite party informed the beneficiary of the cheque stating that the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured inadvertently and not the reason stated in the return memo and requested the beneficiary to present the cheque again for payment at Versova Branch and the same will be honoured. There is no negligence or lapse on the part of the 1^st opposite party and it is only a mistake committed inadvertently by the officials of the Worli Branch of the Bank for which a written apology was tendered to the beneficiary (Trivandrum Golf Club) with a request to present the cheque again. Further the 1^st opposite party has not caused the untold mental agony as alleged because the 1^st opposite party duly informed the complainant as well as the beneficiary of the cheque stating the real facts that inadvertently the cheque in question was returned. No loss has been sustained by the complainant as alleged. So no relief can be allowed. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation under law. It may be noted that the complainant is taking advantage of the mistake committed by the another branch of the 1^st opposite party inadvertently and the same is not enforceable under law. So the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has no relation or contract with the 2^nd opposite party. During the cross examination he confirmed that he has no transaction with the Trivandrum Branch, nor received any passbook or cheque book nor routed the disputed cheque through the Trivandrum Branch. So there is no jurisdiction to file this complaint before the Court and further he has also greed that he received a copy apology letter from the Bombay Branch issued to the Golf Club, Trivandrum (Ext. D1). In the said letter it has been clearly stated that the cheque has been dishonoured a service code mistake that was the reason for the dishonoured for the cheque. Further he has answered the question “ബാങ്കിന്‍റെ mistake bonafide ആണോ ഇല്ലയോ എന്ന് എനിക്കറിയില്ല'” . So the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from opposite parties because the 1^st opposite party committed a bonafide mistake of dishonouring the cheque of the complainant and tendered a written apology to the beneficiary and also the complainant. That mistake committed cannot be taken into advantage of the complainant.

          3. Complainant filed affidavit along with 6 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. He was examined as PW1. Opposite party also filed affidavit along with Ext. D1.

           Points raised:

(i) Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

          (ii) If so, is there any deficiency in service of opposite parties.

          (iii) Reliefs and costs, if any?

          4. Points (i) to (iii):  Perused the documents and heard both sides. Complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service for not honouring a cheque while there was sufficient amount in the account at that time. Opposite party raised the question of territorial jurisdiction as the preliminary issue, since no alleged transaction has taken place within jurisdiction of this Forum, even though there is an office of the opposite party in Thiruvananthapuram. Their contention is that the cause of action has taken place at the place where the alleged cheque was presented ie Worli Branch at Mumbai, ie through the 1^st opposite party. The SB account bearing 478 is being maintained at Versova branch. So the complaint ought to have being filed before the Consumer Fora, Mumbai. Section II of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 deals with jurisdiction.

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -

(a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

© The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.

          Moreover, in the deposition he clearly states that he has no business transaction with the 2^nd opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram. Here the cheque was given to the Secretary, Golf Club, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram and they presented the cheque through SBT Jawahar Nagar Branch. So part of cause of action happened within the jurisdiction of this Forum. So this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Now coming to 2^nd question, regarding deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Here opposite parties admits that he is an account holder of 1^st opposite party. The regional collection Centre, Mumbai presented the cheque for the payment on 05/04/2009 to Worli Branch. They themselves admits that the concerned officials inadvertently due to oversight viewed the account of the business unit Bandra having SOL ID 0446 instead of 1^st opposite party’s SOL ID 0445  and returned the cheque as SB account No 478 of the business unit Bandra was closed on that day. The branch officials of the 1^st opposite party would not contact the complainant as he was in Thiruvananthapuram. These issues happened towards the end of April 2009. Complainant got the information when he got a letter from Secretary, Golf Club dated 15^th September 2009 indicating that club dues were not paid and his name was included in the list of defaulters which was displayed on the notice board of Golf Club. Only after receiving a letter from the complainant demanding compensation dated 7^th October 2009 the bank realised their mistake. Much after that, that too only on 22^nd May 2010 the club received a letter of apology from the bank asking them to represent the cheque. By this time the complainant had already cleared the dues. So the cheque was not represented. So it is crystal clear that there is grave deficiency from the part of opposite parties by which the reputation of complainant was badly affected. His name appeared in the defaulter’s list while he has sufficient amount in his account. So for the mental agony and inconvenience caused by the act of opposite parties complainant is to be compensated. We think it is just and proper an award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint (05/03/2011).

          In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint (05/03/2011). Time for compliance two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which execution can be taken.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 12^th day of July, 2016.

                    Sd/-LIJU B. NAIR :         MEMBER

Sd/- P. SUDHIR             :         PRESIDENT

Ad                         sd/-R. SATHI                   :         MEMBER

C.C.No: 53/2011

APPENDIX

  I.  Complainant’s witness:

          PW1   :         Dinesh. B.P

 II.  Complainant’s documents:

P1      :  Cash receipt bill of Thiruvananthapuram Golf Club dated 20/03/2009

P2      :  Copy of cheque of Jammu & Kashmir Bank dated 21/03/2009

P3      :  Copy of letter of Tvpm Golf Club dated 15/09/2009 to Dinesh. B.P

P4      :  Copy of Return Memo of SBI Service Branch dated 06/04/2009

P5      :  Copy of letter of Dinesh B.P to the Bank of Jammu & Kashmir

P5(a)  :  Copy of letter of Dinesh. B.P to the Jammu & Kashmir dated 30/04/2010

P6      :  Copy of the conduct certificate dated 08/10/2009 to Dinesh. B.P from Jammu & Kashmir Bank.

P6(a)  :  Copy of the statement of Account to Dinesh. B.P

III. Opposite parties’ witness               :         N I L

 IV. Opposite parties’ documents:

D1      :  Copy of the letter to the Secretary, Tvpm Golf Club, Kowdiar from Jammu & Kashmir Bank dated 22/03/12010

Sd/- PRESIDENT

      ad