DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of October 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon.V President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 11/05/2018
CC/64/2018
K.J.Ouseph Joy
S/o.Inasu,
Kuzhukkullikkaran House,
Kainoor (PO), Trichur
(By Adv.Sreenath S) - Complainant
Vs
The Manager
Kerala Gramin Bank
Coyalmannam, Palakkad - Opposite party
(Adv.P.P.Gopalakrishnan)
O R D E R
By Sri.Vinay Menon. V., President
- Facts admitted and uncontroverted by both the parties are as follows:
The complainant is an account holder of the opposite party. A cheque drawn on South Indian Bank for Rs. 60,000/- was presented by the complainant with the opposite party on 25.06.2017. Eventhough the complainant made enquiries as to the status of the cheque, no information was forthcoming from the opposite parties. It was only after 65 days that the opposite party informed the complainant that the cheque was lost in transit.
The complainant further contented that losing the cheque while in the possession of the opposite party tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and sought for Rs. 60,000/- being the cheque amount and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. The opposite party, though they admitted losing the cheque, denied the liability to make good any loss suffered by the complainant on account of the loss. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. They also denied a debtor – creditor relationship between the complainant and the opposite party.
3. Issues that needs consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 60,000/- being the cheque amount?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Reliefs and costs, if any?
4. Evidence on the part of the complainant comprised of Exhibits A1 to A3. No exhibits were marked on the part of the opposite parties
Issue 1
5. As already stated supra, loss of cheque for Rs. 60,000/- is not disputed. But the question is whether the complainant is entitled to recover this amount from the opposite party. It is to be noted that the cheque presented by the complainant was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Loss of cheque would not in any manner prevent the complainant herein from pursuing his remedies before appropriate court as against the drawer of the cheque with sufficient documentary support from the opposite party. The complainant was not in any manner precluded from availing or resorting to any legal remedies owing to loss of the cheque. That being so, the complainant is not entitled to claim Rs. 60,000/- from the opposite party. Issue 1 is found in favour of the opposite party and against the complainant.
Issue 2.
6. Now to deal with the question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party contented that there is no creditor – debtor relationship and hence sought to distance themselves from any liability for loss of cheque. It is true that there is no creditor – debtor relationship. But the fact that the complainant is an account holder is not denied. That therefore gives rise to a fiduciary relationship. When there is a fiduciary relationship, both the parties are expected to take utmost care as any fail could result in monetary loss to either of the parties. That being so, there was an incumbent duty upon the opposite party to take utmost care and caution while dealing with the cheque handed over to it and accepted by it. More than the loss, it is the lapse of 65 days before the loss was reported to the complainant that adds gravity to the unfortunate situation. Eventhough it did not cause any serious damage, it will cause uncertainty and anxiety in the mind of the complainant. Hence on both these counts, ie. (1) losing the cheque in transit; and (2) inordinate delay in informing the complainant of the loss, we find that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Issue number 2 is found thus.
Issue 3.
7. In view of the findings in issue number 2, we hold that the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). The complainant is also entitled to a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). Issue no 3 is answered accordingly.
8. In the result, we hold that the opposite party is liable to pay the complainant a consolidated sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation and cost for deficiency in service.
This order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Original Pay in Slip dt.30/6/17 for Rs.60,000/- with regard to cheque No.075749
dt.25/6/17
Ext.A2 – Communication dated 5/9/2017 from opposite party bank to the complainant
Ext.A3 – Lawyer’s notice dated 23/9/17 issued to the opposite party
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
NIL
Cost : Rs.5,000/0 allowed as cost.
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the
proceedings in accordance with Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission
procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out after 30 days of
issuance of the order.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Fair copy on : 27/10/2021
Despatched on:
