Date of Filing : 26.09.2011
Date of Order : 03.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 3rd APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 198 / 2011
Smt. N.V. Shashikala,
W/o. K. Krishnamurthy, S/o. Kodandaramaiah,
Patna Village, Chamarahalli Post,
Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri. Prashanth.V., Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
Kolar Branch.
2. The Regional Manager,
Regional Office,
Near Doomlight Circle,
Kolar.
(By Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy, Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OP to pay to the Complainant Rs.5,00,000/- are necessary:
Complainant is having S.B. Account with Ops and was having balance of Rs.2,49,407/- as on 08.04.2011. She has issued Cheque in favour of R. Chandrashekar and on presentation it was not honoured by the OP. Hence, the said person filed private complaint against the Complainant for the offence u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and u/s. 420 of IPC. This is deficiency in service. Hence the Complaint.
2. In brief version of Ops are:-
S.B. Account of the Complainant, balance of Rs.2,49,407/- in the account of Complainant, her issuing of cheque to Chandrashekar, it was not honoured by the OP are all admitted. Complainant has issued Sale Certificate stating that some Cows are sold by her to some persons who are the borrowers of the OP Bank. After due verification and inspection, OP learnt that no Cows were found to whom the complainant has allegedly sold and Complainant is the beneficiary of sale proceeds. Complainant played fraud on the OP Bank. OP will appropriate due amount from the account of the Complainant. Hence, endorsement was issued stating “refer to drawer”. Complainant had availed loan for purchase of C.B. Cows and misutilized the same and she is irregular. OP using right of general lien, will appropriate the amount towards discharge of the liability. OP has lodged complaint before the Police.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents and Complainant had filed written arguments. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our findings are:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant had S.B. Account No. 64032206204 with the OP. It is also an undisputed fact that on 08.04.2011 in the Complainant’s account there was a balance of Rs.2,49,307/-. OP at Para-3 has stated thus:
The allegations made in Para-2 of the complaint to the effect that complainant is having her S.B. Account bearing No. 64032206204 and having balance amount of Rs.2,49,407/- is correct.
7. Further it is an admitted fact that the Complainant has issued a Cheque in the name of R. Chandrashekar for Rs.50,000/- on 16.08.2011 and the said Cheque on presentation was dishonoured. Complainant had also issued Cheque in favour of Anjanappa on 10.08.2011 for Rs.2,45,000.00, even that was also dishonoured with an endorsement “refer to drawer”. These are admitted by the OP. When there is sufficient amount in the credit of the Complainant’s account, OP was bound to honour the Cheque. But refusing to honour the Cheque amounts to deficiency in service.
8. In an event, OP contended that the Complainant herself is due regarding Cow loan which she has not repaid and hence they have lien over the said amount. Further it was contended that Complainant sold some Cows to Chandrashekar and in that regard amount has been credited to her account, but in fact, Complainant has not sold the Cows to Chandrashekar and only money granted by the Government has been adjusted to her account and that is the fraud committed by the Complainant. OP has lodged complaint against the Complainant and others in Crime No. 18/12 before the jurisdictional police for the offence u/s. 406, 420 of IPC and the matter is under investigation. There is no charge sheet yet. Hence, it is allegation and not proved facts. OP has to mark lien on the account of the Complainant and then lay them and can recover if the Complainant has not paid and amount of loan towards loan, but they cannot dishonour the Cheque.
9. Further it is seen that the Cheque that has been issued to Chandrashekar & Anjanappa and the endorsement issued by the OP in original are produced by the Complainant before this Forum. That means, there is an ample force in the arguments of the Ops. No proof to show any PCR is filed against Complainants. But, however, when the Complainant had sufficient amount in her account, OP could have marked the lien on the account towards loan and if it is not paid, they could have recovered it, but that has not been done. Alleging Complainant herself is due certain amount and they are holding lien and alleging fraud regarding Cow transaction and not honoured, to this extent, there is deficiency in service.
10. Here original Cheques issued by the Complainant to Chandrashekar & Anjanappa are before this Forum and hence question of those people filing the case against the Complainant does not arise. Hence, there is technically deficiency in service. To this, if we award nominal amount as compensation, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant as compensation.
3. OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. Ops are directed to send the amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3rd day of April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
