IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 29th day of October, 2015
Filed on 06.06.2011
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.191/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. K. Sasidharan 1. The Chief Manager
Silpa Sales Trading Corporation State Bank of India
Mattom North Main Branch, Post Box No.9
Mavelikara – 690 103 Mavelikara – 690 101
(By Adv. P. Anilkumar)
2. The Proprietor
Super Trader
Opposite Anupama Theatre
Kottayam
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed an order on 30.03.2012 dismissing the complaint. Since there was no detailed order, Hon’ble State Commission suomoto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is a proprietor of Silpa Sales Trading Corporation residing at Krishna Vilasom, Kayamkulam. He presented before the State Bank of India, Mavelikara branch through his Union Bank of India, Mavelikara for encashment of two cheques gave to him by the second opposite party. The said cheques were dishonoured due to the reason “signature differs”. Since the cheques were dishonoured he could not pay the amount in time as a result of which he lost a big business deal and had to incur a huge financial loss. The very same cheques were subsequently honoured by the state bank of India, Thiruvalla and Kottayam. There was no difference in the signature and he had to suffer the loss due to the deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed.
3. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that the cheques were so dishonoured since the signature was not tallying with the specimen signature kept by the bank and the same is made clear in the dishonour memo itself. The complainant is neither customer of the first opposite party nor there is any privity of contract between him and his opposite party. Hence complainant is not a consumer and Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Even though notice issued against the second opposite party was served, they did not turn up.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. The first opposite party filed counter affidavit.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
6. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that the cheques presented by the complainant were dishonoured by the first opposite party. According to the first opposite party they dishonoured the cheques since the signature was not tallying with the specimen signature kept by the Bank. The opposite party also stated that there is no privity of contract between him and the complainant and hence the complainant is not a consumer. It is pertinent to note that opposite party admitted in the version that the cheques presented by the complainant were dishonoured by them since the signature was not tallying of the specimen signature kept by the bank. In the instant case complaint is filed challenging the service rendered by the opposite party. Since the first opposite party admitting the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties, complainant is hiring service of the opposite party and is coming under the definition of consumer. Point No.1 answered accordingly.
7. According to the first opposite party the cheques were dishonoured as the signature of the account holder was not tallying of the specimen signature kept in the bank as felt by the person who compared the same. But the opposite party failed to produce any documents, in order to substantiate their contentions. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to prove the difference in the signature with the specimen signature kept in the bank. At the same time it is pertinent to note that when the complainant subsequently presented the one cheque before the S.B.I., Thiruvalla and another cheque before S.B.I., Kottayam and those were honoured by them. It was not challenged by the second opposite party. More over complainant has produced the photo copy of the cheque No. 121142 dated 28.4.2013 and cheque No. 121143 dated 3.5.2013 in which the signature of the drawer attested by the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Thirunakkara. These documents were marked as Exts.A6 and A7. From Exts.A6 and A7 it is clear that the cheques dishonoured by the first opposite party for the reason that drawer’s signature difference were attested by the SBI., Thiruvalla. So the reason for dishonoring the cheque by the first opposite party is not found as correct. The dishonour of the cheques by the first opposite party without making proper enquiry amounts to deficiency in service. According to the complainant the refusal of the first opposite party to pay the money as per the cheque produced by him caused much inconveniences and hardships and he could not pay the amount in time to the Global Organics. In order to prove that the allegation complainant has produced Ext.A3 appointment letter dated 14.4.2011 sent to the complainant by the Global Organics and the termination letter dated 17.5.2011 sent to the complainant by the Global Organics. But it was not proved by sighting the Global Organics as witness. Complainant failed to produce any authoritative document to prove that the loss if any suffered is due to the dishonouring of cheques by the first opposite party, it is true that the dishonour of cheques by the first opposite party has caused much hardships and inconveniences to the complainant and it is to be compensated by the first opposite party.
In the result, the complaint allowed. The first opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. The first opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of October, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Acknowledgement
Ext.A2 - Letter dated 23.5.2011
Ext.A3 - Appointment letter dated 14.4.2011
Ext.A4 - Termination letter dated 17.5.2011
Ext.A5 - Suit notice dated 17.5.2011
Ext.A6 - Attested copy of the cheque dated 3.5.2011
Ext.A7 - Copy of the statement of reason for return
Ext.A8 - Memorandum dated 4.5.2011 – Rs. 21495/-
Ext.A9 - Memorandum dated 4.5.2011 – Rs. 20000/
Ext.A10 - Cheque for Rs.10,000/- dated 11.5.2011
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy // By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
