Karnataka

Kolar

CC/39/2014

Sri. C.M. Manjunath, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijaya Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

A.V.Ananda

12 May 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 01/08/2014

Date of Order: 12/05/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 12^th DAY OF MAY 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB              ……..    MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 39 OF 2014

Sri.C.M.Manjunath,

S/o. Late A.M. Munivenkatappa,

Aged About 29 Years,

R/at: Chambe Village,

Tekal Hobli,

Malur Taluk.    

 

(Rep. by Sri.A.V.Ananda, Advocate)                      ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Branch Manager,

Vijaya Bank,

Chikkakuntur Branch,

Chikkakuntur Village,

Malur Taluk,

Kolar District.                          

(Rep. by Sri.S.N.Mallikarjuna Swamy, Advocate)   …. Opposite Party.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    , PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having applied Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought, relief of recovery of sum of Rs.18,000/- from the opponent towards deficiency in service in rendering service, and for mental agony as well for costs.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

The complainant contends that, he being the customer of the Opponent’s bank was to hold account No.137101010004391 (branch at Chikkakuntur Village) and that on 13.12.2012 he had reported to the opponent that, he had lost his cheque book containing 10 leaves a few of which were signed while in blank .  And that he had requested the opponent bank to stop the payment and not honour any case of presentation for encashment to anybody.  And that in such event he was to be intimated, so that he could take action against the wrong doer and that on 13.10.2012 itself the opponent bank had issued endorsement to the effect that cheque book pertaining to the said account of him was destroyed and that he had even informed the jurisdictional police of this loss of cheque book.

 

1. Further he contends that on 13.06.2013 shockingly he received legal notices at the instance of Sri.Venkatapathi, S/o. Venkateshamappa, Residing at Chambe Village, Tekal Hobli, Malur Taluk, and Sri. C.D.Nagaraj, S/o.Doddearlappa, R/at: Chinapaganahalli Village, Tekal Hobli, Malur Taluk, who had presented the cheques bearing Nos. 341383 and 341381 to the Opponent Bank claiming encashment of Rs.4,00,000/- and that the opponent bank had issued endorsement stating that, the said cheques could not be honoured for insufficient funds.  And that consequently the said two persons did filed a criminal case seeking recover of Rs.8,00,000/- or double the cheque amount.  Even though he was not at fault.  And that the opponent Bank failed to inform such event and even failed to inform jurisdictional Malur Police.  And that thus the Bank did issued such endorsement intentionally or negligently and made him to face the said two criminal cases.

 

2. Further he to contend that on 28.05.2014 he got issued notice to the opponent bank which came to be received on 16.06.2014.  And that this notice was not replied at all.  Thus he to contend that as frequenting to meet the said litigations resulted in loss of agricultural work he required to be compensated to the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and that the opponent Bank was even liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in respect of each of the said cheques.  Thus the opponent to pay in all sum of Rs.18,00,000/- together with costs as noted above.

 

3. Along with the complaint the complainant did submit Xerox copies of complaint in the form of letter dated: 13.12.2012 addressed to PSI, Malur Police Station, intimated dated: 13.12.2012 as issued by the opponent Bank with regard to destruction of cheque book with regard to the said account number of the complainant.  Complaint instituted against him in JMFC Court at Malur at the instance of C.D.Nagaraj.  Office copy of the said notice dated: 28.05.2014, RPAD, another complaint instituted against him in the said court at the instance of the complainant Sri.Venkatapathi.

 

03.   On issuance and receipt of the notice the opponent has put in written version resisting claim of the complainant in toto.  Though admitted, after the stage of the said intimation dated: 13.12.2012 resulting in destruction of the said cheque book there is denial that the complainant had made such a request to intimate him in case of presentation of the cheques.  It is also contended that it was not within his knowledge in regard to submission of the said complaints against the present complainant in the JMFC Court at Malur.

 

(a) Further it is contended that notice dated: 28.05.2014 could not be replied as the then manager after transfer and the successor was failed pursue.  In taking the charge.

 

(b) Further it is contended that once the cheques are presented the bank cannot seize the same.  It is also contended that the complaint is barred by claim.  So contending dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

04.   On behalf of the complainant, complainant himself has submitted his affidavit evidence, whereas on behalf of the opponent Sri.Anurag Arun Krishna Telang as being the Manager has submitted his affidavit evidence. 

 

(a) Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted their written arguments.  With Memo dated: 17.04.2015.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted certified copies of the complaint in C.C. No.416/2013 and C.C.No.469/2013 pending before the learned J MFC at Malur which complaints are at the instance of C.D. Nagaraj and Venkatapathi respectively, as well original legal notice dated: 12.06.2012 as issued by the learned Sri.C.D.Nagaraj advocate learned Sri.Chethan.S.Bal advocate the counsel appearing for the said complainants C.D.Nagaraj and Venkatapathi being the complainants in the above said criminal cases.  And on 08.04.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the opponent with Memo has submitted xerox copies of Jewel Loan account dated: 20.12.2013 in a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- and in a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as availed by the very complainant in this case.  On 11.05.2015 heard the arguments as advanced by the learned councel appearing for both sides.

 

05.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

(A) Whether the opponent Bank could be held guilty of deficiency in service as contended by the complainant?

(B) To what relief the complainant shall be entitled to?

(C) What order?

 

06.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT (A): It shall be premature to give any    definite finding on it on this point.

 

POINT (B):   It does not survive for consideration.

POINT (C):   As per final order.

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

07.   To avoid repetition in reasons and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a) It is a fact that the complainant holds the account bearing No.1371010100004391 with the opponent bank.  It is also a fact that on 13.12.2012 in response to the request intimation of loss of the said cheque book the opponent did issue declaration on 13.12.2012 itself that the cheque book of the complainant pertaining to the said account number bearing cheques vide numbers 341381 and 341390 stood destroy. 

 

(b) However it is alarmingly worth to note that on 13.06.2013 itself the said Venkatapathi and C.D.Nagaraj issued notices to the present complainants, for, according to them the cheques bearing numbers 241383, 341381 for the value of Rs.4,00,000/- has issued by him (the present complainants) were returned on account of insufficient funds.  It was argued length that the learned counsel appearing for the opponent that at this very movement the present complainant ought to have realized ensuring consequences and opted to approach the opponent bank and could have got plausible explanation and that even after lodging of the said complaints resulting in registration of the said criminal cases the present complaint has filed away the time and has come up with present complaint just to overcome ensuing consequences in the said criminal proceedings. 

 

(c) as against the said submission the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently contended that at any cost the opponent bank was legally duty bond in virtue of issuance of the said declaration on 13.12.2012 that resulted in destruction of the said cheque book that un-presentation of the said cheques by said persons the same could be stopped from being acted upon so that the present complainant could have taken legal action against the erroneous person.

 

08.   It is undeniable that the said criminal cases vide C.C. No.416/2013 and 469/2013 instituted at the instance of C.D.Nagaraj and Venkatapathi respectively which are pending before the learned JMFC, at Malur are prior binding time, when compaired to submission of the present complaint on 01.08.2014.  Therefore the above said contentions raised by both the parties before this District Forum are already seized for being considered thread bearingly by the learned JMFC, Malur in the said criminal proceedings and it is inevitable to state that the jurisdiction of the learned JMFC Malur in both the said matter is quite wide.  So, if this District Forum is to venture to give findings on the said contentions certainly there is possibility of conflict in findings.  Besides, this District Forum emphatically to observing back there is imperative need to avoid conflicts in findings and there is already a better jurisdictional forum being the court of learned JMFC at Malur to consider every defense in detail as to be urged by the present complaint as accused in both of the criminal cases.  If in the end result the present complainant is to succeed in the said criminal cases then only he could get right to institute the proceedings by way of submitting complaint before us.  So our findings on this point (A) is that, it shall be pre-mature to give any findings on it, consequently Point (B) does not survive for consideration. 

 

POINT (C):-

09.   We proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the present complaint stands Dismissed with no order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT