Corporation Bank, Ms. Somati … vs M/S. N.C.S. Films, Shri K. Maruti … on 17 July, 2006

0
39
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Corporation Bank, Ms. Somati … vs M/S. N.C.S. Films, Shri K. Maruti … on 17 July, 2006
  
 
 
 
 
 
 NCDRC
  
 
 







 



 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

 

  NEW DELHI 

   

 REVISION PETITION NO. 2808 OF
2004  

 

(From the
order dated 10.9.2004 in F.A.No.58/02 

 

of the State
Commission, Andhra Pradesh)

 

  

 

Corporation
Bank, P.B.No.55  Petitioner

 

 6-7-40, Chinnaveedhi, 

 

Vizianagaram-535001

 

Rep. By its Manager 

 

 

  Versus

   

 M/s. N.C.S. Films

 Vizianagaram

 Rep. By its Managing Partner

 Sri Narayana Narasimha Murthy . Respondent

 

  

 

  

 

 BEFORE  :  

   HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA,  

  PRESIDING
MEMBER 

 

 DR. P.D. SHENOY, MEMBER 

 

  

 For the Petitioner : 
Ms. Somati Anand, Advocate

 

  

 For the Respondent : 
Shri K. Maruti Rao, Advocate

 
For Shri Vidya Sagar, Advocate

 

  

 

 17.7.2006 

   

 O R D
E R 

 

   

 JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER  

 

   

 

   

 

 This revision
is directed against the order dated 10.09.04 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Hyderabad disposing of appeal reducing the rate of interest
from 15% to 12% p.a. against the order dated 11.10.01 of a District Forum
whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs.50,000/-
with interest @ 15% p.a. w.e.f 20.06.94 and cost to the respondent/complainant.
 

 

 Facts giving rise to this revision lie
in narrow compass. Respondent had a
current account No. 276 with the petitioner bank. Cheque bearing No. 844418 dated 14.4.94 for Rs.50,000/- of
Andhra Bank, T. Nagar Branch,   Madras issued by
M/s. Savitri Movie,   Madras, deposited
in the said account for collection on 20.06.94 by the respondent. By the letter dated 22.11.94 respondent was intimated by the
petitioner that the said cheque was lost in transit. Respondent, thus, was
requested to obtain a duplicate cheque and send it to the petitioner for collection. Drawer allegedly refused to issue a fresh
cheque. Respondent, served a legal notice demanding the
amount covered by the said cheque to which reply dated 26.08.94 was sent by the
bank. Complaint was thereafter filed by
the respondent seeking payment of said amount with interest as it was unable to
realise the amount of
cheque due to the fault of
the petitioner. Complaint was contested by the petitioner. In
written version it was not denied that respondent was having current account
No. 276 with the bank. It was alleged
that on receipt of cheque dated 14.04.94 on 4.5.94 the petitioner sent it immediately to   Madras for
collection. Andhra Bank, T. Nagar,   Madras returned
the cheque with the endorsement dated 7.5.94 that there was no sufficient fund
in the account of drawer and respondent
was intimated accordingly. Respondent
again presented the
cheque for collection and
petitioner sent it on 22.6.94 to Andhra Bank, T. Nagar,   Madras. However, the cheque was lost
in transit and could not be traced.
Respondent was intimated of the cheque having been lost in transit
through the letter dated 22.11.94. It was further alleged that the account of
drawer was inoperative
since the date of dishonour of cheque i.e. 7.5.94 and even if the cheque would
have been presented for payment again it could not have been paid. It was
denied that petitioner
is liable to pay the amount of cheque with interest and/or compensation as
claimed.  

 

 Maintaining by the respondent of
current account no. 276; depositing of
cheque in question in that account for collection, cheque having been lost in
transit and respondent having been
intimated of the loss by the petitioner bank by the letter dated 22.11.94 are not in dispute. In written version, petitioner alleged that
the cheque in question was earlier deposited for collection on 4.5.94 and was returned by Andhra Bank, T. Nagar, Madras
with the endorsement dated 7.5.94 that there was no sufficient fund in the
account of drawer - M/s. Savithri Movies.
It is further alleged that the account of drawer was in-operative since 7.5.94
itself and even if the cheque was presented
again it could not have been paid as there was no amount available in
the account of said drawer. In support of this plea, Ms. Somati Anand for
petitioner invited our attention to the
cheque return memo dated 7.5.94 (copy at page 28) and letter dated 15.9.95 sent by the said branch
of Andhra Bank to the petitioner (copy
at page 30). Bare perusal of these
documents would show that the cheque in question was returned for insufficient
fund on 7.5.94 and account of the said drawer( CD
6672) was not in operation since 7.5.94.
Though these two documents were not filed by the petitioner bank before
the District Forum but their genuineness
can not be doubted. These are even referred to in the written version. In
interest of justice these are taken note of while deciding the present revision
petition. Loss of cheque in question in transit was
brought to the notice of respondent well within 3 years period of its issue. It
was, thus, open
to the respondent to have filed suit for recovery of the amount of cheque against M/s. Savitrhri Movies - drawer. Complaint under C.P. Act, 1986 can be filed
only for compensation based on deficiency in service arising out of loss of
cheque in transit but not for recovery of the entire cheque amount. This has also been the view taken by this
Commission in the decision in State Bank of Patiala Vs.
Rajinder Lal & Anr.  IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC). Particularly, taking note of the facts that
cheque in question was dis-honoured for insufficient fund on 7.5.94 and
drawers account was lying in-operative since then, we quantify the amount of compensation payable by petitioner bank at
Rs.10,000/-. Order under challenge,
therefore, cannot be sustained legally. Accordingly,
while allowing revision the
orders passed by fora below are modified and petitioner bank is directed to pay amount of Rs.10,000/-
by way of compensation for deficiency in service on its part to the
respondent. This amount will be remitted
through a demand draft to the respondent within three weeks of the receipt of
the copy of this order. No order as to
cost.  

 

  

 

.J. 

 

( K.S. GUPTA ) 

 

PRESIDING MEMBER 

 

  

 

.. 

( P.D. SHEONY )

MEMBER

YD/*

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here