By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an Order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,50,000/- towards the loss sustained to the complainant due to deficiency of service from opposite parties and to pay compensation.
2. The complainant's case in brief as follows:- The complainant is an account holder of the opposite party No.1 bank vide Account No.0144150. On 27.08.2012 the complainant entrusted a cheque bearing No.10234 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 30.05.2012 with the opposite party No.1 for collection. On entrustment, the opposite party No.1 promised the complainant that the cheque will be processed back within two weeks. After two weeks, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for enquiring about the collection of cheque, the opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that they already sent the cheque for collection to opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 sent the cheque some where else instead of sending back to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 sought two weeks further time from the complainant to clear it. But the opposite party No.1 did not act as promised till the filing of this complaint. So the act of the opposite parties had caused much hardships, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
3. On receipt of complaint, Notices were issued to the opposite parties and both the parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. The complainant filed proof affidavit and produced documents. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The opposite parties produced witnesses and examined as OPW1 and OPW2 and marked Exts.B1 to B13. On perusal of complaint, proof affidavit and documents of complainant and the
evidence of parties and their documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1:- The Opposite party No.1 admitted the entrustment of cheque by the complainant with them and they duly send the cheque for collection to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 in their version stated that they contacted the opposite party No.2 after two weeks and got information from the opposite party No.2 that the cheque was mistakenly forwarded to city Bank, N.A Banglore instead of forwarding to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 stated that there is no deficiency of service from their part and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 also filed version admitting the receipt of cheque for collection from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 states that the complainant is not a consumer of their Bank and no service is ever offered to him. Therefore, the complainant have no locastandi to file this complaint against them. They stated that the date of the cheque received for collection is 30.05.2012 its expiry date is 30.08.2012. They also states that the cheque was received for collection only on 01.09.2012 that is after the expiry date and further stated the non-receipt of the cheque will not cause any loss to the complainant.
5. The opposite party No.2 further stated that they received the said cheque of complainant for collection and another cheque from City Bank N.A Banglore for collection in the very same day. Both these cheques were dishonored with reason “funds insufficient” andcomplainant's cheque was mistakenly send back to City Bank, N.A Banglore and the other cheque was sent to Punjab National Bank ie the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 by noticing the said mistake sent back the cheque to opposite party No.2 which they wrongly received. But the City Bank N.A Banglore, did not send back the cheque to the opposite partyNo.2. So the opposite party No.2 sent several letters to City Bank N.A Banglore but they never responded to it. Moreover, the opposite party No.2 made a complaint before the Reserve Bank Complaint Grievances Cell against City Bank, N.A Banglore and further says that City Bank N.A Banglore is a necessary party in the proceedings. The opposite party No.2 states that there is no deficiency of service from their part and they are not liable to compensate the complainant.
6. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued to hm by the opposite party No.1 on entrustment of cheque for collection with the opposite party No.1. The date of Ext.A1 is 27.08.2012, it proves that the cheque is entrusted to Opposite party No.1 for collection before the expiry date of cheque. The opposite party No.1 duly send the cheque for collection to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 sent a letter to the opposite party No.1 on 11.10.2013 (ie Ext.A2) stating that the cheque was despatched inadvertently to City Bank N.A Banglore and requesting 15 days further time to clear the problem. Ext.A3 is the letter send by the opposite party No.2 to the Manager, City Bank N.A Banglore to return the cheque wrongly send to them. But there was no reply from the City Bank N.A Banglore. In this occasion, it is the duty of the opposite party No.2 to contact the City Bank N.A Banglore for the recovery of the cheque. But the opposite party No.2 did not take adequate steps to get back the cheque immediately despite of sending notices. On delay, the opposite party No.1 send letter to the opposite party No.2 enquiring about the return of cheque. The copy of that letter is marked as Ext.A4. The opposite party No.2 send reply to the opposite party No.1requesting time to clear the problem. Ext.B3 to B13 are the documents produced by the opposite party No.2 to establish their contention. Here the opposite party No.2 admitted that they mistakenly send the cheque to City Bank N.A Banglore. Their documents will also go to show that they have taken certain steps to recover it. Hence this Forum found that the opposite party No.2 did not take any effective steps to recover the cheque immediately. They can even send special messenger to Banglore to recover it. But instead of it they filed complaint to The Director, Reserve Bank of India and waiting for the result. Here the complainant can take necessary steps to get back the money entitled to him only if he get the cheque and return memo in his hand.
7. According to the opposite party No.2, the cheque was dishonored. Then the complainant have only one option to take steps to file complaint U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the drawer. The concerned cheque and return memo are very essential to do it. Here the opposite party No.2 contented that there is no banker and consumer relationship with the complainant in this case and he has not paid any single amount in the Bank and no service is ever offered to him. That contention will not lie in this case. When a cheque is received in the Bank for collection in an account maintained by the borrower in the Bank, it is the duty of the Bank either directly or indirectly to en-cash or dishonor the cheque and to send back to the concerned sender Bank. Here the opposite party No.2 failed to do their service properly. The act of the opposite party No.2 caused much hardships to the complainant. Here the complainant lost Rs.3,00,000/- due to the mistake committed by the opposite party No.2 The opposite party No.1 have done their part properly. There is no deficiency of service on their part. The deficiency of service is apparent in the acts of opposite party No.2. So the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
8. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favor of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the amount of the cheque and the cost of the proceedings along with compensation and opposite party No.2 is liable to compensate the same.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) only to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only as cost ofthe proceedings. The Opposite party No.2 shall comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Thereafter, the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for whole amount till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February 2014.
Date of Filing:14.11.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainants:
PW1. Stephen Saju. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Sundar Ram. Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Sulthan Bathery.
OPW2. Geetha. Branch Manger, Feroke Service co-operative
Bank, Nallalam Branch.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Receipt. Dt:27.08.2012
A2. Copy of Letter. Dt:11.10.2012.
A3. Copy of Letter. Dt:19.10.2012.
A4. Copy of Letter. Dt:07.11.2012.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
B1. Copy of Letter. Dt:19.10.2012.
B2. Copy of Courier Receipt. Dt:27.08.2012.
B3. Copy of delivery run sheet. Dt:01.09.2012.
B4. Copy of Register of Bills received for collection.
B5. Copy of Cheque Return Register.
B6. Postal Receipt. Dt:12.09.2012.
B7. Copy of Letter. Dt:25.09.2012.
B8. Copy of Letter. Dt:19.10.2012.
B9. Copy of Letter. Dt:27.10.2012.
B10. Copy of Email.
B11. Copy of Letter. Dt:10.01.2013.
B12. Copy of complaint letter. Dt:11.12.2012.
B13. Copy of Letter. Dt:12.02.2013.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
