Karnataka

StateCommission

A/615/2017

Syndicate Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uma Ravindra - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay S

13 Feb 2023

ORDER

13/02/2023

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal is against the order dated 23.11.2016 passed in C.C.No. 1331/2014 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.  

2. Counsel for appellant files memo stating that Syndicate Bank has been amalgamated with Canara Bank.  In view of memo, permitted to amend the cause-title.
3. Heard from appellant.  Respondent not present.
4. Advocate for appellant submits that complainant initially had filed complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not honouring a cheque issued for an amount of Rs.37,446/- which was to be payable towards premium to the insurance policy obtained by complainant.  After trial the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses.  Further submits that cheque which was issued by the complainant was not honoured by the appellant bank for want of KYC compliance from the side of complainant.  Subsequently, complainant issued another cheque for the same amount and the same was cleared and premium was paid towards the policy.  The cheque was cleared only because the complainant had provided KYC at the time of issuance of second cheque.  District Commission not appreciated the said fact and though there is no deficiency in service had awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- which is not in accordance with law.  Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
5. On perusal of the order and memorandum of appeal it is noticed that the complainant had issued cheque bearing No.016130 dated 13.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.37,446/-drawn in favour of Max Life Insurance Co.  The said cheque was returned for want of KYC compliance from the side of complainant.  Subsequently, we noticed that complainant had provided another cheque towards premium amount.  After compliance of KYC, the said cheque was realized.  District Commission had not appreciated the defense taken by the appellant.  We noticed no inconvenience or loss suffered by the complainant for returning the 1^st cheque by this appellant.  Inspite of that District Commission without assigning any reasons had awarded amount of Rs.25,000/- payable by this appellant, which according to us lacks legality.  The respondent/ complainant had not submitted any arguments before this Commission as to how he suffered inconvenience or loss due to return of the 1^st cheque for want of KYC.  In the absence of such material we found complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.  As such order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
6. The amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant.

 

 

Member                                    Judicial Member