4.8.09 Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards the amount due under the cheque presented for encashment and to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation along with cost. The case of the complainant is summarized as follows: The complainant is a cancer patient and on account of her pathetic financial condition, Govt. of Kerala has sanctioned a sum of Rs.10, 000/- to complainant to meet her treatment expenditure through Health Department. The amount was sanctioned through Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram by way of a crossed cheque drawn on state Bank of Travancore, Medical College Branch, Trivandurm bearing No.25019 dt.18.2.08. Complainant presented the cheque before the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter the complainant and her father made enquiries several occasions and 2nd opposite party gave only evasive answers. Suspecting foul play lawyer notice dt.29.8.08 was sent calling upon to encash the amount. 1st opposite party sent reply dt.9.9.08 with false and untenable contention. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version but both opposite parties subsequently declared exparte due to non appearance. The contention of opposite party in brief is as follows: the complainant is an account holder. 2nd opposite party has received a cheque bearing No.25019 dt.10.2.08 for Rs.10, 000/-. At the time of the receipt of the cheque opposite party disclosed the complainant that the opposite party bank being a co-operative Bank, unlike Nationalized or scheduled bank does not have the authority to send the cheque directly for collection? Since the complainant was willing with the opposite party to send the said cheque for collection through Kannur District co-op Bank Ltd. The Kannur Dist. Co.op.Bank sends the said cheque for collection, through Dist. Co. operative Main branch, Trivandrum. But unfortunately the cheque which was received by the Trivandrum Dist. Co.op.Bank has not reached at Drawee Bank ie. the SBT Trivandrum. The opposite party is not liable for the missing of the cheque. The opposite party had informed all these to the complainant in time. When lawyer notice was received the opposite party requested the complainant to approach the Health Department, Govt. of Kerala and the Regional Cancer Centre for another cheque since the validity period of the cheque was over. The opposite parties are ready to give all possible support to the complainant. The Kannur Dist. Co. operative Bank Ltd. and the Thiruvananthapuram Dist. Co-op Bank are necessary parties. Hence opposite parties are not bound to pay any amount to the complainant since there is no deficiency of service from the opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint accepting the contention of opposite party. On the above pleading the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consist of oral testimony of complainant and Ext.A1 & A2 Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly complaint is an account holder of the opposite party bank. Complainant presented the cheque for encashment before the Velimanam branch of opposite party Bank. The said amount Rs.10, 000/- was sanctioned through Regional Cancer centre, Trivandrum. Complainant was a cancer patient and the amount was the financial assistance of Kerala Govt... Complainant alleges that after the presentation of the above cheque complainant and her father made several oral requests to opposite party bank regarding the encashment but all the time bank was giving only evasive answers. It is quite natural that every body will make enquiry in such situation. Ext.A1 is the notice sent by complainant to opposite party bank calling upon the bank to encase the said amount. Ext.A2 is the reply. Opposite party admits the total case of complainant but contended that opposite party bank is not liable for the missing of the cheque through conveyed the message that sorry for the inconvenience caused to complainant. Opposite party also admitted that the validity period was already over. It was also asked to advise complaint to approach Health Department of Kerala Govt. for another cheque. It was also advised in case of any legal action that is to be limited against the Thiruvananthapuram District co-op bank, Main Branch, Trivandrum. Ext.A2 proves that the opposite party bank has no clear end answer for the non encashment of the cheque. Opposite party bank had not disclosed anything till they receive the lawyer notice with respect to the missing of the cheque. Opposite party had not thought of informing the complainant about the missing of cheque before the expiry of the period of cheque. Opposite party contended that the Thiruvananthapuram District co-op., bank had Received the cheque from Kannur District co.op.Bank Ltd. But there is no piece of paper to show that it is received by them. Opposite party bank did not take any steps to bring the truth in light. The attitude of opposite party bank in all dealing reveals that they are under the impression that there is no duty cast upon them to protect the interest of the consumer as if they are free from liabilities. Whatever may happen to cheque Opposite party bank has no explanation even in their version for the reason why the complainant had not been informed of the loss of cheque before the validity period of cheque was over. Does it mean that after receiving the cheque the opposite party bank has no responsibility at all to encash the cheque? Is it not the duty of opposite party bank to make the complainant known the steps that they have taken to discharge their legal duty? What all stepsthe opposite party bank has taken to trace out the lost cheque? Nothing has done. The reply notice as well as the version kept totally silent with respect to the attempts that have been supposed to be initiated by the opposite party bank. There is nothing to show that the opposite party bank has done anything to trace out the cheque. That itself is large and sufficient to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank. In the light of available evidence on record we have no hesitation to hold that it is crystal-clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby liable for entire loss suffered by the complainant. The opposite party bank is liable to pay Rs.10, 000/- the value of cheque submitted by the complainant before the opposite party for encashment after deducting normal rate of commission amount that would have been entitled for in case of encashment. The complainant is also entitled for compensation for an amount of Rs.1500/- along with Rs.1000/- as cost of these proceedings. Thus the issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant. Order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand ) as the value of cheque after deducting normal rate of commission and an amount of Rs.1500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) as compensation along with Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which it shall be attracted 9% interest for Rs.10,000/- from the date of presentation of the cheque till the realization of the amount. The complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the opposite parties after the expiry of 30 days from the date of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A2.Reply notice Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainannt Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
