CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

                                                                                                                                       Smt. Bindhu.M.Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                     Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.288/11

Saturday the 28^th day of April, 2012

 

Petitioner                                              : Pramod.G.Nair,

                                                               Puthenparambil,

                                                               Channanikadu PO,

                                                               Kottayam.

                                                           

                                                          Vs.

 

Opposite parties                                   : Sr.Manager,

                                                             Axis Bank No.IX-311A/2

                                                             Near YWCA

                                                             M.C.Raod, Kottayam 686001.

                                                             (Adv.Kuruvila Jacob)

                                                            2) Managing Director,

                                                                Navadhanyam Farms &Plantations,

                                                                IV/4D Veluthedathu Building Edappally

                                                                Post Cochin-24.

 

 

            The case of the complainants presented on 17-11-11 is as follows.

 

            He had taken a DD for Rs.20,000/- from the 1^st opposite party bank on 30-11-10 for depositing share of the 2^nd opposite party on the advise given by 2^nd opposite party. The DD has been sent to the 2^nd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party received DD. But the 2^nd opposite party has not enchased the DD. The complainant came to know that 2^nd opposite party is not functioning due to legal problems. Thereafter the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party several times for refund the unpaid DD amount. The 2^nd opposite party is not taken any steps to refund of unpaid DD amount to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

            The notices were served with the opposite parties. The 2^nd opposite party did not appear even after accepting the notice from the forum. Hence 2^nd opposite party set-exparty.

            The 1^st opposite party appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There are no consumer disputes against the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party’s firm was conducting money circulation scheme whereby members are enrolled by receiving money or valuable things, as the consideration for a promise to pay money to the existing members on the event of enrolment of new members in to the scheme. To participate and promote this illegal business the DD was purchased and collected. The DD was sent to the 2^nd opposite party with the above said intention to make him a member of this illegal activity. The activities of the 2^nd opposite party were offence punishable under section 4 of the price chits and money circulation schemes (banning) Act 1978. On 13/12/2010 a letter has been issued by the Kalamassery Police Station intimating a case registered against the 2^nd opposite party and its office bearers in crime No.2258/2010 of Kalamassery Police Station. The bank accounts of the 2^nd opposite party were freeze on the direction by the Judicial 1^st class Magistrate Court, Aluva.  Now it is reliably learnt that the 2^nd opposite party is is under some litigation and they have ceased functioning and official liquidator is appointed. On the basis of the request DD for Rs.20,000/- bearing No.54480 was issued to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 bank normally send letters to the purchasers of DD which are lying unpaid in the bank’s system for 6 months from the date of issue. The above DD was figuring in the records of the 1^st opposite party bank as unpaid and hence letter dtd 21-10-11 was sent to the complainant informing that the DD is still unpaid and requesting him to contact the payee for its earliest collection. A DD is an order instrument payable only to the payee mentioned person on demand. As per banks guidelines some procedure has to be complied for cancellation of a draft if the purchaser of the DD is having the possession of the original DD. If the person presenting the draft for collection is found to have good title then the value of the draft must be paid. That is why the 1^st opposite party is unable to cancel the DD and return the amount to the complainant as the original DD is not in possession of him. The 1^st opposite party bank informed the complainant to contact the official liquidator of the firm for the refund of his money.   It was also suggested to him to get a no objection certificate from the official liquidator intimating the bank that he has no claim in respect of the DD for and on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party. It was only out of the best service that the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the DD was lying unpaid from the date of issue. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 1. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A3 and he was examined as PW1. The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.B1 to B3.

            Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidence of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party has not refund the unpaid DD amount. According to him the unpaid DD amount was purposefully withheld by the 1^st opposite party without any basis. The 1^st opposite party has taken a contention that the DD was with the 2^nd opposite party and amount included in alleged DD was not enchased by the 2^nd opposite party or any one. According to the 1^st opposite party there was some procedure to be followed by the complainant for cancellation of the DD. Admittedly the disputed DD amount was not enchased by anybody. From the available documents it can be seen that the DD amount is unpaid till date. The 2^nd opposite party firm is under liquidation proceedings and the official liquidator was appointed. The DD was with the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant has to liable to comply the formalities for cancellation of the DD.

            In our view 1^st opposite party not enchased the DD amount due to the fault of them. According to the 1^st opposite party, 2^nd opposite party firm, (DD was in favour of them)is under liquidation. The complainant is not disputed the above said facts and circumstances. Hence in the interest of justice we allow the complaint with the following directions.

            In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. We direct the 1^st opposite party to proceed the request of the complainant expeditiously as possible within 30 days after getting the documents and formalities from the complainant for cancellation of the DD and refund the DD amount to the petitioner. In the above circumstances both parties will suffer their respective costs.

 

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu.M.Thomas, Member                     Sd/-

                                         

 

Ext.A1is the copy of letter dtd 21/10/11 from the Axis Bank

Ext.A2-is the visiting card by Senior Manager of the Axis bank

Ext.A3-is the blank stamp paper of Rs.100

Ext.B1-is the copy of letter issued from the SI of police, Kalamassery.

Ext.B2-is the copy of letter dtd 21-10-11 from the Axis bank

Ext.B3-is the copy of letter dtd 18/11/11 from the Axis bank.

 

By Order,

 

Senior Superintendent.