Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/560/2012

S.MOHAMED KALEELUR RAHMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

N.A. NIZAR AHAMED

30 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                            BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                              Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 560/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.421/2009 dated 31.7.2012 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai(South) ]

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

Mr. S.Khader Mohideen

Son of P.Shaik Abdul Khader

Residing at No. 24/97 Thiruvalluvar Salai

Teynampet

Chennai 600 018                                                                             ..Appellant/complainant

                                                                        Vs

The Manager

Syndicate Bank

Pigmy Deposit Section

No.171, Eldoms Road

Teynampet

Chennai 600 018                                                                            ..Respondent/opposite party

 

Counsel for Appellant/complainant     : M/s N.A.Nishar Ahmed

Counsel for Respondent/opposite party  : M/s K.S.Viswanathan

 

The appellant is the complainant.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) in CC.No. 421/2009 dated 31.7.2012.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 20.10.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (South) this commission made the following order.

 

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.             The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.            The complainant having joined Pigmy deposit scheme  with the opposite party by depositing  Rs.1000/- per day from 1.5.2007  till 22.6.2008 and having balance of Rs.4,19,000/- as credit on the date. When the complainant approached the opposite party for re-payment on 21.7.2008, he was paid only Rs.1,89,000/- by way of cheque dated 21.7.2008 and the balance of Rs.2,30,000/- was not paid and thereby a consumer complaint was filed, claiming the refund along with compensation and cost.

 

3.             The opposite party admitting the complainant joining the deposit scheme through one agent P.D.Periyasamy, who had not paid the amount collected from the complainant, came to know about it during June 2008 and after conciliation, the complainant having admitted receiving back of Rs. 2,30,000/- already received Rs.1,89,000/- in full and final settlement from the opposite party on 23.7.2009 in the presence of the counsel of the complainant and the settlement was executed in writing and thereby no due is payable and the complaint to be dismissed.

 

4.            Based on both side materials after an enquiry, the District Forum dismissed the complaint in view of the final settlement reached between the parties.

 

5.            Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this complaint contending that the settlement letter was given subject to realization of the cheque given which was not realized and thereby the balance amount for Rs.2,30,000/- to be payable by the opposite party with interest and the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint.

 

6.               When the appeal was taken up since no response was made for the respondent, his side argument was closed on 8.7.2015 and after hearing the appellant side arguments and upon perusal of materials, the order being passed on merits.

 

7.         The contention of the appellant/complainant is that he was given a cheque for Rs.1,89,000/- towards alleged settlement and the cheque was not realised  and thereby the opposite party has to repay the amount of entire balance of Rs.2,30,000/- with interest. Whereas the Respondent/opposite party contended that one P.D.Periasamy, collection Agent has not deposited the amount collected from the complainant, which was came to known in June 2008 after receiving legal notice from the  complainant and since the complainant sent communication under Ex. B.3, B.4 & B.5, that there was a settlement between the complainant and the collection agent for the remaining amount available with the opposite party for Rs.1,89,000/-, it was settled by way of pay order dated 21.7.2008 as full and final settlement as per Ex.B.5 and it was acknowledged under Ex.B.6  and thereby no amount is due. On perusal of Ex.B.3, B.5 and B.6, it is clear that before the payment made by the opposite parties, there was a settlement between the complainant and the collection agent by receiving part payment of Rs. 90,000/- in full quit from him under Ex.B.5 and subsequently in the presence of his counsel the complainant signed receipt for receiving Rs.1,89,000/- by way of pay order as final and full settlement under Ex.B.3. Eventhough the complainant said the cheque was not honoured, it was produced before the Commission to prove the same, the opposite party’s record would show prove that the  pay order which may not be the nature of cheque is the amount on par with Demand drafts and thereby the complainant failed to prove the contents of the appeal ground in this regard. In view of the stand taken before the District Forum by the opposite party and supported with materials, the complaint was dismissed with which we find no error or  infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum in this regard and this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit and accordingly,

            In the result this appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) in CC 421/2009 dated 31.7.2012.

          No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                      A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER