KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 182/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03-11-2009 PRESENT: SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. The Alakkod Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No. 1588, Kalayanthani P.O., Thodupuzha. 2. The Secretary, The Alakkod Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No. 1588, Kalayanthani P.O., Thodupuzha. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. George Cherian Karippaparambil & Sri. S. Reghukumar) Vs RESPONDENT Mr. Thomas, S/o Abraham, Onattu House, Kalayanthani P.O., Alakkode Village, Idukki (Dist) JUDGMENT SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the order dated 1st July 2008 in CC 17/2007 of CDRF, Idukki wherein and whereby the opposite parties are directed to give to the complainant compensation of Rs. 7,000/- with costs of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the outstanding amount would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. 2. The brief facts of the case bereft of unnecessary details in the complaint are that the complainant is an account holder of the opposite parties and that on 29-11-2006 he presented a bearer cheque for Rs. 40,000/- to the opposite parties for collection. The cheque was in the name of his son Thomas T Onattu and that as required by the opposite parties the complainant obtained an endorsement from the said Thomas T Onattu and when it was presented again, the opposite parties were reluctant to honour the cheque and as a result, the complainant sent a lawyer notice for which also there was no reply from the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs. 3. In the version filed by the opposite parties it was contended that the cheque that was presented by the complainant was in the name of one Thomas T Onattu and so the complainant was asked to get an endorsement of the said Thomas T Onattu. The case of the opposite parties is that the complainant never came back with the endorsement and that there was no deficiency in their service and hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. It was also submitted by the opposite parties that they had sent a reply to the complainant stating the above facts and that the delay in sending the reply was because they had to obtain the sanction of the Director Board. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents P1 to P4 and on the side of the opposite parties Ext. R1(a) and R1(b) were marked. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is unsustainable on the ground that the complainant did not obtain the endorsement as required by the opposite parties and produced the cheque after endorsement. It was also submitted that the cheque was not in the name of the complainant and in such a situation if the cheque was to be credited to the account of the complainant it was mandatory that the party in whose name the cheque was drawn has to make an endorsement in the name of the party who required the amount to be credited in his account. He has also advanced the contention that the Forum has failed in appreciating the bonafides of the complaint and that the order was passed without any appreciation of the requirements for encashing cheques. It is also his case that if somebody else’s cheque is to be encashed, the bank is taking due care and caution as it is common that misappropriation and misrepresentations usually occur atleast in some cases. Advancing the said contentions the learned Counsel argued for allowing the appeal thereby dismissing the complaint in toto. 7. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. It is argued by him that the complainant has presented the cheque after getting the endorsement of Sri. Thomas T Onattu and that the opposite parties had taken a recalcitrant attitude towards the complainant. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that the complainant is a senior citizen aging around 84 and that if there was any objection in honouring the cheque the opposite parties could have informed their objection in writing, which they never did. It is also the case of the learned Counsel that the amount was for the urgent necessities of the complainant and it was only to harass and humiliate him that the opposite parties took the stand of getting an endorsement. Contending that there was gross deficiency on the part of the opposite parties he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with costs. 8. On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent and also on perusing the records produced before us we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant had produced a cheque drawn in the name of Thomas T Onattu to be realized and credited in his account. It is also found that the opposite parties have not taken any action in crediting the amount in the name of the complainant. The appellants would argue that an endorsement from the drawee of the cheque was necessary for realization of the amount. It is also an admitted fact that the opposite parties have not given any intimation in this aspect or that they have not replied to the lawyer notice in time. The lawyer notice is dated 13-12-2006. Immediately on getting the said notice the opposite parties could have replied stating the fact that the cheque required an endorsement. As rightly observed by the Forum below no reply is seen given by the opposite parties within the specific time. So also if the cheque was not endorsed the opposite parties could have very well given a letter requiring the endorsement. In the absence of the above, we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as observed by the Forum below. 9. The Forum below has allowed Rs. 7,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. We find that no loss has been occurred or that the complainant has adduced any evidence to the effect that he has suffered any loss. In the absence of suffering of any loss, the learned Counsel for the appellants argued that no compensation can be ordered. But taking the ratio in Charansingh’s case (Charansingh Vs Healing Touch Hospital and others 2000 (SC) CTJ 721 CP), we feel that opposite parties are liable to pay a nominal compensation of Rs. 4,000/-. The cost awarded is also seen on the higher side and we reduce the same to Rs. 1,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above. Thereby the appellants/opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the appellants are liable to pay interest also at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till payment. In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Sr | 
