By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant is an account holder of the Opposite Party bank. On 30.03.2015, the Complainant presented a cheque for Rs.18,046/- in the bank for collection. But, till now, they have not collected the amount or returned the cheque to the Complainant. Though, the complainant enquired the reasons for non collection, the Opposite Party had not stated anything clear. Therefore, due to the negligence and deficiency in the service of opposite party, the Complainant suffered physical, mental and financial difficulty. Hence this complaint to get the cheque amount Rs.18,046/- with interest@ 12% from 30.03.2015 and Rs.10,000/- as compensation with cost.
3. The Opposite Party filed version which in short is as follows:-
They admitted that the Complainant had presented a cheque for Rs.18,046/- for collection on 30.03.2015. But, due to the work load during the financial year ending, they failed to send the cheque for collection. So, there is no wilful fault from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant about the inability to send the cheque for collection. They also contacted him through phone and requested to get revalidated cheque. But, the Complainant has not done so. They denied that the Complainant regularly contacted the opposite party and enquired about the cheque and the Opposite Party said nothing. Even now, the Complainant can get revalidated cheque and he can so present the revalidated cheque for collection. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on Opposite Party. So the Complainant is not entitled to get the amount of the cheque with compensation and cost. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of
Opposite Party?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1 to A3 and Ext.X1. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- Ext.X1 is the cheque. Admittedly, the Complainant presented Ext.X1 cheque before the Opposite Party bank for collection through his account. Admittedly, the Opposite Party did not collect the money or return the cheque to the complainant. So, the Complainant alleged negligence and deficiency in service upon the Opposite Party for not presenting the cheque. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party is that the Complainant presented the cheque only on 30.03.2015 and since there is year ending work load, they could not send the cheque for collection and that though they requested the complainant to get revalidated cheque, the complainant has not obtained back the cheque for revalidation.
7. To prove the case of Complainant, he has given evidence as PW1. To disprove the case of Opposite Party, OPW1 has given evidence. The father of the complainant filed this complaint for and on behalf of Complainant. Ext.A1 is the power of attorney. Ext.A2 is the copy of the first page of the pass book of complainant which contains the counter foil obtained by the Complainant when he presented the cheque. The case of Complainant is that he has regularly contacted the opposite party to get back the cheque, but they have not given back the Cheque or money. The case of Opposite Party is that they contacted the Complainant through phone for getting revalidated cheque, but the Complainant has not get back the cheque for revalidation. So, it is evident that the Opposite Party did not give back the cheque to the Complainant or the Complainant did not get back the cheque from the bank. The Complainant presented Ext.X1 cheque on 30.03.2015 and sent a letter on 29.06.2015 requesting the bank to collect the money. He filed this complaint on 29.07.2015. The Opposite Party specifically took a contention that due to year ending work load, they were unable to send the cheque for collection and the Complainant has not received back the cheque for revalidation. But, it can be seen that the Opposite Party has not returned back the cheque to the Complainant with memo stating the reason for non collection. The Opposite Party is bound to return the cheque with memo containing the reason for non collection. But, they have not done so till now. So, without this documentary evidence, oral evidence of Opposite Party cannot be accepted to show that they contacted the Complainant in order to get revalidated cheque. So the oral evidence of OPW1 cannot be accepted to prove that they have requested the complainant to get back the cheque. They should have returned the cheque with reason through memo. So there is deficiency in their service. So, point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant.
8. Point No.2:- It is to be noted that the Complainant has not still withdrawn the said amount. The Complainant has received Ext.X1 cheque from KSRTC towards the settlement of his provident fund when he relieved from his duty from KSRTC. PW1 deposed that the Complainant has not withdrawn this amount so far. So, still this amount is kept in the account of KSRTC. The Complainant can either revalidated Ext.X1 cheque or get a fresh cheque from KSRTC to withdraw this amount. So, even if there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party, the Complainant has not lost the cheque amount. Still, he has a right to get the amount from KSRTC. So, he is not entitled to get cheque amount from Opposite Party. But, since there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party, the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.7,500/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this proceedings. Thus the Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of June 2022.
Date of Filing:-29.07.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Velayudhan. Retired Court Staff.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Sreebhajan. M. K. Chief Manager, SBI(Retired).
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Power of Attorney. Dt:25.08.2015.
A2. Copy of Bank Pass book front Page.
A3. Copy of Letter. Dt:29.06.2015.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
X1. Cheque issued by Manager (Accounts), KSRTC. Dt:02.03.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
