BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI K.VINODH REDDY, B.Sc.,
FAC PRESIDENT.
SMT.CH.A.LATHA KUMARI, M.A.,M.Sc.,LL.M.,
FEMALE MEMBER.
. . .
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 63 OF 2012
Date of filing: 21-12-2012
Date of Disposal:23-08-2013
Between:
Cholleti Chandra Mohan S/o Sathyanarayana, Aged: 47 years,
Occ: Employee, R/o H.No.5-8-217, Near Bharath Gas,
Rahamath Nagar, Nalgonda Town and District.
….Complainant.
AND
The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Nalgonda,
Near: Clock Tower, Nalgonda Town and District.
...OPPOSITE PARTY.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on this day, in the presence of Sri B.Ravi, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri D.Amarendar Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI K.VINODH REDDY, FAC PRESIDENT
1. This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant, a sum of Rs.33,600/- towards cheque amount, Rs.16,400/- towards mental agony along with costs..
Contd…2
- 2 -
2. The facts leading to the filing of this complaint are as follows:
The Complainant was dealing transactions vide Account No.10710992470 with the Opposite Party (Bank). It is the say of the Complainant that the Complainant and another person namely; Vattipaka Shyam Sundar S/o Mattapalli R/o Nakrekal Village were close friends and also working in the same department. In that relation Vattipaka Shyam Sundar received a loan amount of Rs.20,000/- from the Complainant on 26-10-2009 for his personal use. On demand by the Complainant to return the amount Vattipaka Shyam Sundar issued a cheque bearing No.227833 in the name of the Complainant drawn on Andhra Bank, Nakrekal Branch for a total sum of Rs.33,600/-. The above cheque was deposited in the Opposite Party’s bank on 17-07-2012 for realization. As the amount was not credited to his account after lapse of 45 days, he approached the Opposite Party who replied orally that the cheque was bounced for insufficient funds, that the Opposite Party did not receive back the bounced cheque. After 10 days from that day, ie. On 10-09-2012 the Complainant made a written application to the Opposite Party, but he did not get any reply.
3. The Complainant made a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad on 13-09-2012 with acknowledgment receipt Complaint No.201213009000973. As there is no action from the Ombudsman and the Opposite Party, where the statutory period for the acknowledgment of cheque was lapsed and also the limitation period was lapsed to file a case Under Section 138
Contd…3
- 3 -
of N.I. Act, the Complainant had no other remedy to recover his money against V.Shyam Sundar. Hence, this complaint.
4. The Opposite Party filed written version accepting that the Complainant was having a S.B.Account vide No.10710992470. The cheque bearing No.227833, was presented on 17-07-2012 drawn on Andhra Bank, Nakrekal Branch to the credit of the Complainant’s account. On 18-07-2012 the bank has started collection process and the cheque was sent to the State Bank of India, Nakrekal on 19-07-2012 through Registered Post for collection from the Andhra Bank, Nakrekal. As there is no information or reply from the S.B.I., Nakrekal Branch for some period, no information was informed to the Complainant. On 10-09-2012 the Opposite Party received an application from the Complainant regarding the status of the cheque to initiate legal action. On the same day, the Opposite Party addressed a letter to the S.B.I., Nakrekal Branch seeking information about the status of cheque.
5. On 22-09-2012 the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Nakrekal Branch replied to the Opposite Party vide a letter stating that the cheque presented in Andhra Bank, Nakrekal was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” on 24-07-2012. The original cheque along with return memo, dated 24-07-2012 was sent to the Opposite Party through express mail and the same was received by the Opposite Party on 31-07-2012. In spite of verifying all the records with the Opposite Party, they could not trace the information about the lost cheque in their bank.
Contd…4
- 4 -
5. Surprisingly on 29-10-2012 through a local delivery system from the State Bank of Hyderabad, Nalgonda Branch the Opposite Party received the bounced cheque along with memo. Immediately on 30-10-2012 the Opposite Party addressed a registered letter to the Complainant showing the status of the cheque and further asked him to take back the cheque along with memo. For the reasons unknown to the Opposite Party, the Complainant had refused to receive the registered post letter and the same is endorsed by the postman on the back side of the cover which is marked as Ex.B-8. Ultimately, the Opposite Party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. The parties filed their respective proof affidavits. The Complainant marked Exs.A-1 and A-4 and the Opposite Party marked Exs.B-1 to B-8 for proof on record.
7. The point for consideration is:
Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Party?
8. POINT:
It is not in dispute that the Complainant was having a Savings Bank Account with the Opposite Party vide Account No.10710992470. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had presented a cheque bearing No.227833 for Rs.33,600/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Nakrekal Branch, in the Opposite Party’s bank on 17-07-2012. The Opposite Party sent the cheque for clearance to the State Bank of India, Nakrekal Branch on 19-07-2012.
Contd…5
- 5 -
9. On not receiving any information from the Opposite Party, the Complainant gave written application to the Opposite Party on 10-09-2012 regarding the status of the cheque. Immediately the Opposite Party enquired with the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nakrekal, who informed that the cheque presented was returned on 24-07-2012 by the Andhra Bank, Nakrekal Branch with an endorsement that “funds insufficient” along with return memo dated 24-07-2012 was sent to the Opposite Party through express mail with an acknowledgement dated 31-07-2012.
10. On thorough verification with the records, the Opposite Party found that the cheque was not received by them, but on 29-10-2012, the State Bank of Hyderabad, Nalgonda Branch sent a local delivery which contained the original cheque along with the return memo of the Andhra Bank, Nakrekal Branch.
11. The Opposite Party addressed a registered letter to the Complainant stating that the cheque was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds” and advised the Complainant to receive the same along with return memo which was received from the S.B.H., Nalgonda Branch. The reasons best known to the Complainant, the registered letter Ex.B-8 was returned to the Opposite Party with an endorsement by the Postal Department that “rejected to receive”.
12. The Complainant did not produce any recorded evidence as argued by him that the cheque was issued with regard to the loan
Contd…6
- 6 -
given to Vattipaka Shyam Sundar. The admittance of the Complainant in his complaint that the presented cheque was bounced was intimated to him, by the Opposite Party, within 45 days from the date of presentation of the cheque, for clearance. The Complainant did not produce any recorded evidence that he had persuaded with Vattipaka Shyam Sundar, the loanee, for issuance of another cheque with regard to the bounced cheque, establishes the lapses on the part of the Complainant, to recover the amount from Vattipaka Shyam Sundar.
13. Non-production of proof, of loan given by the Complainant to Vattipaka Shyam Sudar, rejection to receive the registered post sent by the Opposite Party by the Complainant in spite of knowing the fact that the presented cheque was bounced with an endorsement of “insufficient funds”, wrong delivery of returned cheque with memo to the State Bank of Hyderabad, Nalgonda Branch by the State Bank of India, Nakrekal Branch establishes that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
14. The Complainant is at his liberty to approach the appropriate court to recover the cheque amount. The time spent in this Forum shall be exclude from the limitation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 23rd day of August, 2013.
FEMALE MEMBER FAC PRESIDENT
Contd…7
- 7 -
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Party:
Affidavit of the Complainant. Sri P.Hemanth Kumar, Chief
Manager of SBI, Nalgonda Br.
filed his Affidavit on behalf of
Opposite Party.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1 Dt.17-07-2012 Original Counter Foil.
Ex.A-2 Dt.10-09-2012 Letter addressed by the Complainant
to the Opposite Party.
Ex.A-3 Dt.13-09-2012 Letter addressed by the Complainant
to the Ombudsman, Hyderabad.
Ex.A-4 Dt.13-09-2012 Acknowledgment given by the Banking
Ombudsman, Hyderabad to the Complainant.
For Opposite Party:
Ex.B-1 Dt.17-07-2012 Original Cheque bearing No.227833
for Rs.33,600/-.
Ex.B-2 Dt.10-09-2012 Letter addressed by the Complainant
to the Opposite Party.
Ex.B-3 Dt.10-09-2012 Letter addressed by the Opposite Party
to the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Nakrekal.
Ex.B-4 Dt.22-09-2012 Letter addressed by the Branch Manager,
S.B.I., Nakrekal to the Opposite Party.
Ex.B-5 Dt.24-07-2012 Cheque Return Memo.
Ex.B-6 Dt.29-10-2012 Xerox copy of Log Book of S.B.H.
Ex.B-7 Dt.30-10-2012 Letter addressed by the Opposite Party
to the Complainant.
Ex.B-8 Dt.30-10-2012 Registered Post Letter.
FAC PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri Bhuvanagiri Ravi,
Advocate for the Complainant.
2). Sri D.Amarendar Rao,
Advocate for the Opposite Party.
