Date of Filing : 19.06.2012
Date of Order : 15.12.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 15th DECEMBER 2012
PRESENT
Sri. J.N. HAVANUR, B.Sc., LLB (SPL) ……. PRESIDENT
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB …….. MEMBER
CC No. 72 / 2012
Sri. K. Narendra,
S/o. Late Keshavappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o. No. 371, Chalapathi Compound,
1st Main, 3rd Cross, Opp. RTO Office,
Kolar. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Cottonpet, Kolar Branch,
Kolar.
2. The Manager,
State Bank of India,
P.C.R. Compound, Nehru Road,
Chintamani Branch, Chintamani,
Chikkaballapur District. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
The Complainant has filed the above complaint seeking direction against the Ops 1 & 2 to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- (Cheque amount) with interest @ 18% on the said amount, costs of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service, Conveyance charges of Rs.10,000/- and such other reliefs. The Complaint averments are that:
He is a teacher and is drawing his salary from OP1. One Venkatappa, S/o. Govindappa, employed in SBI, Chintamani Branch, approached the Complainant for hand loan which he promised to pay within 2 months and gave Cheque bearing No. 765737 dtd. 15.10.2010 drawn on SBI, Chintamani Branch. On 15.10.2010, the Complainant presented the said Cheque through the Complainant’s Account with OP1 Bank, but OP1 returned the Cheque on 25.10.2010 stating “Refer to drawer”. The Complainant re-presented the said Cheque on 23.11.2010. The OP Banks neither returned the Cheque nor gave any endorsement regarding the Cheque transaction. The Complainant further states that he contacted the Banks several times by visiting in person and through phone calls and letters, but went in vain. Finally, on 20.09.2011, the Complainant gave an application to OP1 seeking endorsement for his Cheque bearing No. 765737 deposited for realization, but OPs 1 & 2 did not respond until 07.12.2011. On 07.12.2011, OP1 issued a reply letter to the Complainant conveying “With reference to your collection of Cheque No. 765737 dated 15.10.2010 for Rs.90,000/- drawn on Account No. 95030 at our Branch, we have to advise that Mr. G. Venkatappa, the drawer of the Cheque has closed his Account 21.09.2005. So the instrument could not be paid. This message of non payment was conveyed to your office through Telephone in November 2010 by our Accountant. The captioned instrument might have been misplaced at our end. However we enclose non payment certificate in lieu of the misplaced instrument”. The Ops issued the said letter after lapse of one year and thereby showed deficiency in service. On account of delay of more than one year, the Complainant could not exercise his option to move for collection of Cheque proceeds. He further alleged that if OP Banks had done their job sincerely and seriously, the Cheque would not have got misplaced or misused and if the Cheque had been promptly returned to the Complainant, he would have recovered the Cheque proceeds through competent Court of Law. The Complainant avers that he has no other alternative remedy to receive (recover) the money from the person who issued the Cheque. As such, the Ops are liable to pay the Cheque proceeds along with interest having suffered mental agony due to loss of his work, loss of interest on the Cheque amount of Rs.90,000/-. The Complainant was compelled to file the above Complaint.
2. On being served with notice, the Ops appeared through their Counsels and filed versions. OP1 stated that the said Cheque has presented through the Complainant account from the first opponent Bank for realization of Cheque amount on 15.10.2010, but the opponent Bank No. 1 returned the Cheque on 25.10.2010 stating that returned to drawer and that again the Complainant presented the said Cheque on 23.11.2010 for realization of the said amount. OP1 denied that Complainant has no alternative remedy to receive the money from the said Cheque and he lost time and energy. However, OP denied deficiency of service on its part in not returning the Cheque or endorsement regarding the Cheque transaction. OP1 also denied specifically that message of non-payment was conveyed to OP1 through telephone in Nov. 2010 although no such information had been received by OP No. 1. The OP1 contended that all possible care and efforts were taken to secure information from OP No. 2. OP1 denied any deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of complaint.
3. OP2 filed version admitting that OP2 Bank received the said Cheque through Syndicate Bank on 15.11.2011 for payment. The said Cheque could not be paid as the Account of G. Venkatappa i.e., drawer of the Cheque was closed as early as 21.09.2005 and this fact was conveyed immediately to OP1 over Telephone by the Accountant of OP2 Bank. OP2 denied that the Complainant has been informing regarding the Cheque presented by the complainant but one way or the other the opposite parties did not respond. Further, OP2 has issued non-payment certificate on 02.12.2011 to enable the Complainant to work out his remedies against the drawer of the Cheque. OP2 has contended that the Complainant has got remedy against the drawer of the Cheque and it is still intact and OP2 has offered to issue any further certificate if required by the Complainant. OP2 has denied any deficiency of service on its part and sought for dismissal of complaint.
4. On perusal of the documents, averments, contentions of the parties and affidavits filed by them, the points that arise for our consideration are as under:
(i) Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
(ii) If so, what relief the Complainant is entitled to?
(iii) What order ?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(i) Affirmative
(ii) As per final Order
(iii) As per final Order
REASONS
6. Point Nos. (i) to (iii) – It is admitted by the OP1 that the Complainant presented the Cheque bearing No. 765737 through OP1 Bank on 15.10.2010 which was returned to the Complainant on 25.10.2010. It is also admitted by the Ops that the Complainant re-presented the Cheque on 23.11.2010 for realization. Legally the period for realization of Cheque is 6 months, but the Ops herein neither returned the Cheque nor gave endorsement within the stipulated period of 6 months. The letter of OP1 dtd. 07.12.2011 is in response to the Complainant’s letter dated 20.09.2011. Both the Ops were silent about the Cheque transaction for more than one year which in itself is deficiency of service. By not acting promptly, the Ops have deprived the Complainant of quick remedy and also interest on Rs.90,000/- for more than 2 years from the date of presenting the Cheque for realization. The inordinate delay in returning the Cheque and giving of endorsement regarding misplacement throws aspersion that OP2 was indeed shielding its ex-employee i.e., the drawer of the Cheque by name Venkatappa. The Complainant has lost interest on Rs.90,000/- for no fault on his part. Had the Ops returned the Cheque / given endorsement within reasonable time, the Complainant could have initiated proceedings for quick recovery of his Cheque amount. The delay caused by the omissions of Ops 1 & 2 has resulted in loss of interest on Rs.90,000/- and mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. OP1 having received collection charges for the services, ought not to have delayed in giving endorsement regarding the Cheque transaction. The Ops have shown gross negligence in not expediting the realization of Cheque deposited. As such, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. OP2 has furnished citation of Hon’ble National Commission in RP No. 1925/2011 Inderjeet Ajmani v/s. Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce. The facts of the case cited are not applicable to the facts of this Complaint. Making application of guidelines of the said decision to the present case on hand, we are of the view that the facts of the present case on hand and the facts and circumstances of the said decision are on different footing. So, the cited decision given by OP2 will not come to the rescue of OP2. In the present complaint, the OP Bank had misplaced the Cheque and failed to give any endorsement even after lapse of one year period, thereby depriving the complainant to seek alternative remedy in the appropriate Court of Law. The OP Banks through their omission have caused loss of interest due on Rs.90,000/- i.e., the Cheque amount and the Banks have committed gross negligence which is nothing but deficiency of service. Hence, in view of our discussions made hitherto, we answer this point in the affirmative. In the result for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed in part.
Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.15,000/- being interest @ 8% P.A. on Rs.90,000/- for 25 months within 30 days from the date of this Order and in case of default, Ops shall pay interest @ 9% P.A. on Rs.90,000/- from the date of respective payment till the date of realization.
Ops shall also pay Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses to the Complainant.
Supply free copy of the Order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15th day of December 2012)
K.G.SHANTALA J.N. HAVANUR
Member President
