IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
Filed on 10.05.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.102//10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. John Joseph 1. The Senior Branch Manager
Kallupurackal House Syndicate Bank
Poonthoppu Ward Alappuzha Branch, Retna
Avalookkunnu P.O. Building, Near Iron Bridge
Alappuzha Alappuzha
(By Adv. Babu Joseph)
2. M/s. Syndicate Bank
Head Office Manipal
Uduppi District
Karnataka State
(By Adv. P.K. Mathew -
opposite parties)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
In nutshell, the facts giving rise to the complainant is as follows:- The complainant is the SB Account holder of the opposite parties bearing A/c No.4100 22016654. The complainant on 17th July 2009 presented a cheque bearing No.706177 for an amount of 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) drawn on SBT Changanacherry Industrial Estate Branch for collection with the 1st opposite party. Even after a reasonable period it appeared that the amount covered by the cheque has not been credited in favor of the complainant. On enquiry, the complainant was told that the cheque had gone astray, and the opposite party instructed the complainant to obtain another cheque from the drawer to make up for the other. The complainant took the matter up with the 1st opposite party. He caused to send a lawyer notice dated 14th September 2009 to the opposite party. The opposite parties response was discouraging. The service of the opposite parties is deficient. The opposite parties are liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) covered by the lost cheque amongst other relief. The complainant sustained monetary and mental woes. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notices being sent the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite parties is that notwithstanding due diligence, the cheque deposited by the complainant was mislaid. Even earnest endeavors did not yield any result. This factum of cheque-loss has promptly informed to the complainant, the opposite party avers. According to the opposite party, the complainant has not lost his money covered by the cheque. Adequate and appropriate remedy is available for him under the provisions of civil procedure code to recover the amount from the drawer of the cheque. The opposite party offered its co-operation in any proceedings under law to the complainant. The opposite party has concealed nothing from the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties asserts.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complaint himself as PW1, and the documents Exts. Al to A4 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the branch manger was examined as R W1, the drawer of the cheque was examined as RW2, and the documents Exts. B1 and B2 were marked.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the complainant the cheque
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only)?
(2) Cost and compensation?
5. The deposit of the cheque in question by the complainant or the amount the said cheque covered is not denied or disputed by the opposite parties. Concededly the cheque was gone astray from the custody of the opposite parties. The bone of the contentions of the opposite parties is that the complainant has got diverse alternate remedies to make good his loss. Keeping in view those contentions, we have anxiously gone through the materials placed on record by the parties. On a plain perusal of the available materials on record, it is manifest that the cheque was admittedly mislaid by the opposite parties. Needless to say, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. In this context, the sole question remains to be addressed is whether the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant, the entire cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) as claimed by the complainant. To put it differently, it is to be looked into in what manner or extent the opposite parties are accountable to the aforesaid deficiency. The counsel for the opposite parties took us through two decisions delivered by the Hon’ble National Commission viz. 1. 2007(1) Consumer Protection Report 280(NC) M/s. Modern Woollens Vs. United Commercial Bank & 2. Consumer Protection Report 280(NC) Manoj Khurana Vs. Rajennder Banchor, and produced the same before us for perusal thereof. In so far as the facts and circumstance of the present case we are of the view that the aforesaid two decisions are badly chosen, and hence immaterial. In the aforesaid cases, the complainant was in a position to seek alternative remedies to recover the cheque amount. On the other hand, in the instant case, the original cheque has gone astray once and for all. In the said back drop, the complainant has no remedy available to recover the amount of the lost cheque. Needless to say, the instant circumstance of losing the cheque and the cheque amount forever cropped up solely for the laxity and lack of discipline on the part of the opposite parties. In as much as, no other remedy is available for the complainant to recover the amount of the lost cheque, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are obliged .and accountable to make good the loss of the complainant. . In view of the discussions herein above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the cheque amount and a compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and findings, the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant the cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of institution of this complaint. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation and another amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost to the proceedings. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - John Joseph (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the letter dated 27.7.2009
Ext.A2 - Copy of the letter dated 10.8.2009
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Advocate notice dated 14.9.2009
Ext.A4 - Copy of the reply notice dated 5.10.2009
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - P. Sekhar (Witness)
RW2 - K.K. Parameswaran Pillai (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the statement of account
Ext.B2 - Copy of the letter dated 21.8.2009
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
