DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 18th day of May 2015
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 28/03/2014
(C.C.No.52/2014)
Aravindakshan.K
S/o.Late Velayudhan Nair,
College View Kendriya Vidyalaya Road,
Palappuram Post,
Ottapalam – 679103 - Complainant
(By Adv.K.Sivadasan)
Vs
Sangeetha,
Manager,
South Indian Bank Ltd.
Ottapalam Branch - Opposite party
(By Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of the complaint.
Complainant who is a senior citizen approached opposite party for crediting a Demand draft of Rs.2400/- in his account maintained with them. The demand draft was drawn by State Bank of India, Kottayam Branch in favour of Vijayalakshmi, Manager, Kottakkal Arya Vidyasala. The complainant is the owner of the above firm. Complainant submitted that Vijayalskhmi endorsed on the reverse side of demand draft and complainant presented the demand draft for encashment. But opposite party refused to pay the proceeds of the demand draft stating that “payee name differs”. They also made a reason that signature mismatched. Complainant also submitted that demand draft was not a crossed one and it is a bearer one. Demand draft was presented before the opposite party by holder in due course of the negotiable instrument. Complainant approached opposite bank to honour the demand draft for several times, but they refused to honour the same. According to complainant the act of opposite party amounts to a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to the act of opposite party complainant sustained great mental agony and irreparable financial loss. Then the complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party. Opposite party replied for the same with flimsy contentions. On 10/3/2014 complainant filed complaint before Banking Ombudsman and subsequently he returned the complaint stating, file complaint before the appropriate Forum for the redressal of grievances. Complainant also submitted that validity of demand draft is also expired. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.2400/- being the value of demand draft and cost of proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version contenting the following: Opposite party admitted that the complainant has presented a demand draft for crediting in his account which was drawn in favour of Vijayalakshmi. Demand draft did not carry any endorsement on the reverse side and was not crossed. Hence opposite party admitted that they refused to pay the proceeds of demand draft to the complainant. At the time of presentation there was no endorsement on demand draft. Upon the insist of complainant, opposite party issued a written memo stating payee name mismatch. Opposite party advised to present demand draft after getting endorsement from Vijayalakshmi. Opposite party submitted that instead of getting endorsement from Vijayalakshmi and representing the same, the complainant initiated legal proceedings to harass and tarnish the reputation of the opposite party. Complainant filed complaint before Ombudsman who after verifying the facts closed the complaint. Opposite party further submitted that original demand draft is with complainant from the date of return, if there is any endorsement in the demand draft, the complainant may have obtained the endorsement only after such return. The complainant has not presented the demand draft after getting valid endorsement from Vijalakshmi. The opposite party in good faith and as a prudent banker had requested the complainant to present the instrument after due endorsement which he failed to do. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A5 are marked from the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B6 marked from the side of opposite party. No oral evidence is adduced by both parties.
Issues are to be considered
- Whether there is any deficiency in service committed by opposite party ?
- If so, what is the relief ?
Issues 1 & 2
Both parties heard. We have perused the documents on record. The dispute between the parties is only with regard to the endorsement. Ext.A1 shows that Vijayalakshmi endorsed on the reverse side of the same. Ext A5 shows code No.84 the reason for the return of Demand Draft is Payee name mismatch. In Ext.B4 (letter dated 28/1/2014 sent to Ombudsman by the complainant) it is also mentioned that Smt.Vijalakshmi has endorsed to his favour. As per version of opposite party at the time of presentation of demand draft there was no such endorsement, the complainant has obtained the endorsement from Vijayalakshmi only after return of demand draft without encashing the same. Opposite party did not adduce any evidence or examine complainant or manager of the opposite party bank to prove this fact. If there is no such endorsement in Ext.A1, opposite party ought to have issued memo stating no endorsement in the demand draft. Inspite of this, opposite party issued memo stating payee name mismatch. From the above circumstances we are of the opinion that Demand Draft was properly endorsed at the time of presentation. The act of non giving the DD proceeds amounts to deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Complainant submitted that due to the act of opposite party he had sustained great mental agony and irreparable financial loss. In order to assess the financial loss sustained, complainant did not produce any evidence. However the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is allowed. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs 2,400/- (Rupees Two thousand and four hundred only) towards Demand Draft amount and Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony along with cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only). Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of May 2015.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – DD No.203493 for Rs.2400/- drawn on SBI, Paramathy, Velur.
Ext.A2 – Copy of letter by Banking Ombudsman to the complainant.
Ext.A3 – Copy of lawyer notice issued to opposite party.
Ext.A4 – Reply to lawyer notice sent by opposite party.
Ext.A5 – Copy of cheque return memo by South Indian Bank Ltd. Ottapalam
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 – Copy of lawyer letter dated 8/3/2014
Ext.B2 – Copy of letter dated 21/2/2014 to Banking Ombudsman by Dy.General
Manager, Planning & Development South Indian Bank
Ext.B3 – Copy of letter dated 7/3/2014 to Sr.Manager, Ottapalam Branch
Ext.B4 – Copy of letter dated 28/1/2014 to Banking Ombudsman by the
Complainant
Ext.B5 – Copy of letter dated 14/2/2014 to Branch Manager, by Banking
Ombudsman
Ext.B6 – Copy of letter dated 10/3/2014 to Chief GM, South Indian Bank by
Banking Ombudsman.
Cost
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
