THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

APPEAL NO.712/2020

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

Sri.T.Srinivasa

S/o K.N.Thimmaiah,

Aged about 55 years,

R/at No.421, 16^th Main,                                      ...Appellant/s

Muneshwara Block,

Bangalore-560 026

(By Sri.N.Ramachandra, Advocates)

-Versus-

1.      The Branch Manager,

Union Bank of India

Opp. Food Mart,

Behind CBI Office, RT Nagar,

Bengaluru – 560 032

                                                                         ... Respondent/s

2.      The Branch Manager,

          Bank of Baroda,

          #5, 50 feet road,

          Avalahalli Extension,

          Girinagar, Bengaluru- 560026

(OP No.1 – By Sri.R.K.Amarnath, Advocate)

(OP No.2 – By Sri.V.Annaiahppa, Advocate)                                                  

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant in complaint No.883/2018 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the 2^nd Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru which dismissed the complaint and submits that he had filed a complaint against the respondent alleging deficiency in service and claimed compensation and for refund of Rs.5.00 lakhs along with compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh and submits that he had entered into an agreement of sale with one Smt.M.Mala on 28-1-2014 for purchase of property for sale consideration amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs.14,00,000/- by cash and Rs.3,50,000/- through cheque and further sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash on 6.2.2015. After receipt of the said amount, the said Smt.M.Mala failed to execute registered sale deed, for which he had issued a legal notice, in response to the legal notice, she addressed a letter dated 18-7-2017 along with two posted dated cheques expressing inability to execute the sale deed. The cheque bearing No.066902 dated 27-7-2017 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and another cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- bearing No.066903 dated 12-12-2017 which was drawn on Union Bank of India for repayment. The complainant had submitted two cheques for realization of the amount but the Union Bank of India had dishonored the cheque issued by the said Smt.Mala for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as insufficient funds. Against which this appellant filed a criminal complaint against the said Smt.Mala in Crime No.50019/2017. There afterward the complainant also tendered another cheque bearing No.066903 dated 12-12-2017 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which is presented for encashment, but the respondent bank had issued an endorsement stating “Withdrawal Stopped Owing to Insolvency of Account holder” and shown their inability to clear of the cheque for Rs.5,00,000/-.

2. Aggrieved by the said, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for payment of the said amount along with compensation. The District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint without any reasons. In fact this complainant had tendered a cheque issued one Smt.Mala for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- but the said cheque was not honoured, instead of that the respondent bank issued memo stating “withdrawal stopped owing to insolvency of account holder”. But the District Commission without considering the said facts had dismissed the complaint. The endorsement issued towards insolvency of account holder is from Bank of Board and not from Union Bank of India. The said matter has to be clarified by the respondent, but the said respondent has not clarified the said facts before the District Commission, hence the order passed by the District Commission is illegal and prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allowed the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

3. Heard.

4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and other documents produced before the District Commission, issuance of memo after tendering the cheque for realization not amounts to any deficiency in service. The respondent bank has issued a memo stating that “withdrawal stopped owing to insolvency of account holder”. Mere issuance of the said memo is not valid ground for claiming the cheque amount from the respondent. The complainant had an option if the cheque was returned with an endorsement of such a memo to initiate any other proceeding for recovery of the said amount. Instead of that the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party bank. We do not find any valid reasons to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party bank. In the absence of such we also not hold that the respondent bank rendered any deficiency in service. The District Commission after due consideration of the documents and affidavit produced by both parties and dismissed the complaint. Hence we do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. As such the appeal is dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

The impugned order 11.9.2020 passed by the 2^nd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.883/2018 is confirmed.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member                                    Judicial Member

Jrk/-