20*'
IN THE man coum or KARHATAKA AT .5
DATED THIS THE 20% DAY or H
PRESEET-~ A x V %
THE Hoprnm MR. Jusnég
TI-IE i-iON'BL;E.. am. _.3r1:..fs.'*;*:cE_ .K..iuM.m:§A
wan' PEnTIé1i'--fie.17qi3§; {GM-Com
BETWEEN:
The Veneer CQV-cgefisgfiiie'
Agricultmai i3a:1i:"Ltd.',"'~ . '
Repztasentiigi bygifs 1'«x~i|_fanagér._ " "
H.Mohafif1méd;A..Vif, "
S/0Al111'3cd,__ -- VV .» .
Aged about 53 Years, '
Be1thangady'§'.aIu_k, V . .
VENDOR -- 574'-'fifi-_V_§.V " .. P.'fi3TITIGNER.
(33; sri~.Prakgish§_L;ggae K. Adv.)
1. a Mr. Satizyérniira' Rae,
" .S}'b H.f€aina-bhandra Rao,
Z\;'§.aj0z; ' E2 gvéi indu Sadana,
'V Netfgda,
BEL'i?§£AKGADY 'r.a._z__.t:x.
scmzc Bank,
Beithangady Taluk,
--TReprcse1;itcd by its Manager. .. REBPONDEHTS,
5 \<../
*3!" 'k, fig, *_ 1k__ 1'!" air__ it
This Writ Petition is filed under micxes 9f the
Constitution of India, pxaying to quash the
Kaxnataka State Consumer Disputeg Redn%::s'sa1..
Noa916/2008 at Annexure __ «fa»;
Consumer Disputes Redressal F°z.1"15'5.{)3.2{)O8. Thus in other wozris, this Wzit Petition
ufitier Arficies 226 and 227 of the Constitution nf India is
'agéixxét findings of fact recoxtled by the afcrresaici two authoxzities.
-»IwkV)wever, we have still heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
V at iength and censifiered the record.
Facis lie in narrow campus:
Compiainant - respondent No.1 *
account holder bearing No. with ‘iiie.:.::pCf1itVi:0iLC1’
Bank. Respondent No.1 ffiad
bearing 682860 dated for.
Rs.60,000/ — drawn 011 ‘reepondeilt Hltwas 2 L’
deposited with the petitioI}{ezf’ forVco1iectjVoni
After conSi{1eVfa_¥:}1e_. ‘oeiiisher the proceed of
the chequeV was of respondent
No.1 nor«?11_Ve’1-cheique Since the
petitioiaesj ego to perform its obligation,
1_ ~’~’ VI~§ol<:1e1" sufiened monitoxy
Ioseof Rs.V£${T,{).{)GVj'71'E_1fis afier serving notices on the
petitioner :r,e,~3§o.z1dent No.2 he was constrained to
5 ' fiie a oo.mpia'£11t 'before the District Consumer Disputes
B?e..+::11e$sa1V'F'o1"a1i1:, Mangalore. After consideration of
t.}:_1e.eco;«:i1p_laint on znerits, the following order came to
the Disfiiot Forum:
“The complaint is allowed against
Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1
is hereby directed to return the cheque or
make use of the cheque for recovery of
Rs.6{),()€){)/ – due fxom the drawer within a
month from the date of this order. Ami
further directed to pay to the Co.mp}a1’na11’£
Rs.6,Q0(}[~ (Rupees Six Thousand oxaly) as
W5
compensation and cost of the proceed.i1ig§:,’ *
Payment shaii be made within da:y;~;’L:'”–
fxom the date of this order. ” V
Complaint agajfigt i T. i
No.2isd2smisse:d, ” « ” ‘
Feeiiilg agg”i’ieveci3ii”i’o»..:iiZ?f? t]:ie’ tha ii
petitioner was constraixgoeé. an 2ipp*:ai,3.§}cfoI*e tho
State Consumcfi”._..i:Di$;§utu:;svi iifiodifessai Commission,
Bangalore, I*cgistoV:j¢i1 1 16/ 2008. The
‘same aim ho ci§1:£:’2Vi3.1O.20{)8, for the
reasonsk .§f’ar_a 3%. 05 the impugned onier.
‘ Peruisal that it was a case of
i:éEo.24:h:%_’re§;1 -that if had not received the
éhequei in <ci1x5Vsiioi13,,'ii:;aid to have been sent by the
petifigncgr. _£i'.i§1ag';5,3}so been recordeti themozl that
' '{.TP_,.tfi;i{).Vf1{':»3'_AJh§aV'.(i failed to establish beyoné any doubt
V t:'jCsat "316 ciiéqtiéi in questioza was sent to respoxidfint
N_o;~2:'«vt3iiIough courier. Thus the contaention of thfi
"ogzzooradixig to the Appeiiate Forum was rightly
I';f?j€Cvi§S€iAK by the Distxict Forum. it cannot be zienicd
~~tvh.-at such a serious fauit committed by the pefitioner
" vséoultri amount to deficiency in service 01:: its part and
themfom both the authoriizies were jusfifizttd in granting
necessary reiief to respondent fit). 1.
'xx
After all, far the irresponsibie 5
petitioner, the account hcnider – res*,p(3j§1:i:1e;13:§ * V'
cazmot be put to any financial @933. Pefiii:<.&fi_efV's:ht:;1id
have taken adequate and p:r:,*.:c)1:)
the 1933 said to have mfipondent
No.1, the account..1;’:01d,<§:f"'oi;%. *§}i€'-.petit:i6fiér'"–~ Bank.
Nothing was prodiiczéd. forums by the
petitioner to' show thai; €l;1e'v<:laLcqi.§.;*:Vx§%2§$3'~s7eI1t by caurier
service. –
4″ angles, we are of the opinion
that no cféasé foi” »j s..–~made out. Petition being devoid of
merit of s1:1bS’ta3i1Cfi.,_i’;3 htéxfzb}? dismissed.
+ Sd/-2
Iudga
Sd/-9
Iufiéé