This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 10/10/14 in the presence of Sri V.V.Ramanujarao, advocate for complainant and Sri K.Padmaja, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking credit  of Rs.12,500/- to his Savings Bank account with the opposite party  (being cheque amount) together with interest @24%p.a. from 01-02-14, Rs.3,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as legal expenses. 

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

The complainant is having an account with the 1^st opposite party vide No.32418620854. The complainant on 24-01-14 presented the cheque bearing No.1075 dated 13-01-14 for $250 issued by Wells Fargo Bank, Minnesota of U.S.A.  The complainant fifteen days later came to know that the amount covered by the said cheque was not credited to his account.  The staff of the 1^st opposite party required the complainant to wait for few more days. The complainant therefore eagerly waited till February, 2014.  The staff of the 1^st opposite party when approached again by the complainant required him to wait for some more time as the cheque was misplaced.  The complainant made number of visits to the 1^st opposite party in this regard.  The complainant on 05-04-14 issued notice to both the opposite parties.  The opposite parties though received notice kept quite.  The opposite parties not taking proper care in safeguarding the interest of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service.  The complainant suffered mentally and financially as the opposite parties did not settle his claim amicably.  The complaint therefore may be allowed. 

3.      The contention of the opposite party in brief is here under:

          The complainant is having SB account with the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is rendering the best services to its customers including the complainant.  The opposite parties received notice issued by the complainant regarding $250 cheque bearing No.1075 dated 13-01-14 by Wells Fargo Bank, Minnesota of U.S.A.  After receiving the said notice the 1^st opposite party contacted the complainant over phone and requested him to furnish copy of cheque and counter foil.  As the counter foil did not bear any initial it was very difficult to enquiry or to verify that matter.  Even then the 1^st opposite party verified relevant registers and local delivery book and the verification revealed that no entry was mentioned in respect of that cheque.  The subject cheque was not traced out but all cheques which were deposited by the complainant earlier were shown in short credit book and local delivery book.  The complainant along with his brother met the 1st opposite party and discussed about the subject cheque.  The complainant agreed to deposit duplicate cheque and cancellation of original cheque.  The complainant Thereafter the complainant never approached 1^st opposite party from         24-01-14 to July, 2014.  The complaint is false, fabricated and invented by the complainant to have wrongful gain. The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.    The complaint therefore may be dismissed.             

4.      Exs.A-1 to A-3 & Exs.B-1 to B-5 on behalf the complainant and opposite parties were marked. 

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1.       Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation if so to what amount?

          3.       To what relief?

6.   The admitted facts in this case are these.

a).     The complainant is having SB account with the 1^st opposite party vide  account No.32418620854 (Exs. A-1 = B-2). 

b).    The complainant issued legal notice on 05-05-14 to the opposite parties (Ex.A-3).

7.      POINT NO.1:- Burden is on the complainant to prove that he deposited the subject cheque with the 1^st opposite party on 24-01-14.  To prove the same the complainant filed Ex.A-2 counter foil.  On Ex.A-2 counter foil there was round seal of the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A-2 did not contain signature of the person who received the subject cheque and details of the said cheque covered by Ex.A-2 as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party.

8.      The 1^st opposite party have not specifically denied that the round seal on Ex.A-2 did not belong to it.  The version as well as affidavit of the opposite party revealed that the complainant was earlier depositing cheques of a foreign bank issued by his relatives or friends.  When the opposite parties have not specifically denied regarding round seal on Ex.A-2 it has to be presumed that the complainant deposited the cheque covered by Ex.A-2 on 24-01-14.  The averments of the complaint and version of the opposite parties revealed that some correspondence (oral) took place between them.  The contention of the complainant about the staff of the 1^st opposite party in not taking proper care of the subject cheque covered by Ex.A-2 in our considered opinion amounted to deficiency in service.  We therefore answer this point against the 1st opposite party only.   

9.      POINT NO.2:-   In view of the above findings the complainant is entitled for value of the subject cheque covered by Ex.A-2 as on 01-02-14 (considering reasonable period) less the collection charges. The complainant is also entitled to interest on that amount @ applicable to SB account from 01-02-14 till payment.            The complainant claimed Rs.3,000/- as compensation towards mental agony.  It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite parties misplaced the cheque or acted negligently or intentionally. As this Forum awarded interest to the complainant in our considered opinion is not entitled to any compensation.  We therefore answer this point accordingly. 

10. POINT NO.3:-   In view of our findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as detailed infra:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to credit the amount of value of   $250(two hundred and fifty) as on 01-02-14 to complainant’s account less the collection charges. 
2. The 1^st opposite party is further directed to pay interest @ applicable to SB account on the amount covered by that cheque. 
3. The 1^st opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees 

          two thousand only) towards cost of the complaint.  

4.        The 1^st opposite party is directed to comply the above order within

           a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 

1.       The claim against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed without costs. 

          Typed to my dictation, transcribed by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 14^th  day of October, 2014.

MEMBER                                                                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:   

     PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.