IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 65/09 DATED 24.04.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Shiva Kumar.M.C., Operator 127, GRS Fantasy Park, KRS Road, Metagalli, Mysore-570020.<br /> (By Sri.M.Y.Kumar., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Main Branch, Opposite to Clock Tower, Ashoka Road, Mysore-570001.<br /> (By Sri.T.N.Ramesh., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 25.02.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 25.03.2009<br /> Date of order : 24.04.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has come up with this complaint against the opposite party in brief is, that on his application for Provident Fund loan, the Provident Fund Commissioner sanctioned loan of Rs.16,400/- and sent a cheque dated 25.05.2007 for that amount to the opposite party for crediting it to his account. The opposite party has received that cheque on 30.05.2007 through post, but failed to send the cheque for clearing and probably misplaced or lost the cheque due to their negligence. When he approached the opposite party several times for crediting that cheque to his account, but was of no use. On enquiry with the postal authorities, he found that cheque was delivered to the opposite party on 30.05.2007, then he gave a representation to the opposite party on 07.08.2007 for crediting that cheque amount to his account, but did not work out. Then on the Provident Fund Commissioner issuing a duplicate cheque, that amount was credited to his account on 11.09.2007 after lot of delay. Therefore, attributing deficiency in the service of the opposite party has prayed for interest of Rs.1,500/- from 01.06.2007 to 11.09.2007, Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony and other expenses in all claiming Rs.16,215/-.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party entered appearance through his advocate and filed version, denying the receipt of cheque referred to by the complainant on 30.05.2007 from the Provident Fund Commissioner. The opposite party has further categorically denied the receipt of the cheque and stated on receipt of a complaint from the complainant regarding non-crediting of the cheque amount to his account, he contacted the Provident Fund Commissioner requested him to send a duplicate cheque and on getting the duplicate cheque, they have credited that amount to the account of the complainant on 11.09.2007 and he by further specifically denying all other allegations of the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced a Xerox copy of the acknowledgements of the concerned post office, which contain sending of certain letters to the respective addresses with their signatures and seals for having delivered those letters to the addressee and has also produced a copy of the letter he had addressed to the opposite party and reply given by the opposite party. The opposite party has not produced any documents. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that a cheque bearing No.621385 dated 25.05.2007 for Rs.16,400/- was delivered to the opposite party on 30.05.2007?<br /> 2. Whether he further proves that the opposite party has caused deficiency in either misplacing or having lost the cheque and by not crediting that amount to his account?<br /> 3. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1 and 2:- Since the grievance of the complainant that a cheque prepared by the Provident Fund Commissioner for payment of loan amount to the complainant was delivered to the opposite party for getting that amount credited to his account on 30.05.2007 has been specifically denied by the opposite party, the burden is on the complainant to prove that the cheque in question was delivered to the opposite party for arranging to credited that amount to the account of the complainant. The complainant in his affidavit evidence reiterating what he has stated in the complaint has stated as if the cheque was delivered to the opposite party through postal authorities on 30.05.2007 and produced copy of the acknowledgement issued by the postal authorities, which contain signatures of the addressees to whom those letters were delivered. In this list of postal articles delivered to several persons, the counsel for the complainant invited our attention to two letters shown to had been delivered to the opposite party on 30.05.2007. But, this document do not contain any particulars as to from whom those letters were sent to the opposite party and what those letters were and if they were covers what those postal covers contained. When we invited the contention of the counsel representing the complainant as how the complainant can rely upon this document in the absence of any particulars as to what those letters were and from whom they were sent and what they contained, the learned counsel for the complainant was not in a position to convince us that one of these two letters or toppals was sent by the Provident Fund Commissioner officer which contained the cheque. Whereas the counsel representing the opposite party argued that in the course of business of the opposite party every day, the opposite party receives several letters from several customers even from their administrative branches and they will be delivered to the opposite party by the postal authorities and in that connection in that course the letters are delivered to the opposite party on 30.05.2007 and it cannot be construed that one of those letters were sent by the Provident Fund Commissioner office which contained the cheque. On hearing the counsel for both the parties and perusal of this document, we are compelled to disagree with the contention and argument of the counsel for the complainant and agree with the stand taken by the counsel for the opposite party. Hence, it is clear that on the basis of this postal record further in the absence of proving that one of those letters contained the cheque in question it is not possible to hold that the cheque in question was delivered to the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant should have made efforts to obtain a copy of the letter or any proof from the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner to prove that a cheque was dispatched or delivered to the opposite party on 30.05.2007 if not the complainant could have chosen to examine an official of the office of the provident Fund Commissioner to speak about delivery of the cheque to the opposite party or even he could have examined the postal authorities to speak whether that two letters delivered to the opposite party on 30.05.2007 were containing the cheque sent by the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner. The complainant absolutely has not placed any materials before this Forum to prove the delivery of the disputed cheque to the opposite party on 30.05.2007. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the Xerox copy of the postal authority has no relevance to the delivery of the cheque to the opposite party. That being so, the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has either misplaced the cheque nor lost it do not stand to the reason.<br /> <br /> 8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the opposite party himself had requested the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner to issue duplicate cheque and on issuing such a duplicate cheque, the amount was credited to the account of the complainant. Therefore, it pre-supposes that opposite party since had misplaced or lost the cheque, themselves had moved the Provident Fund Commissioner and obtained a duplicate cheque and an inference has to be drawn that the opposite party had lost the cheque. For then the opposite party in the version and also in the affidavit evidence has stated as they received a complaint from the complainant and in order to help him, they contacted the Provident Fund Commissioner Office and obtained a duplicate cheque and then credited to the account of the complainant. Hence, we do not find any justification for the learned counsel for the complainant to argue to drawn an inference in this regard against the opposite party. Even otherwise when the complainant is not able to prove before us the delivery of cheque to the opposite party on 30.05.2007, then he has no right to command the opposite party to account for it and to attribute deficiency to him. Thus, we hold that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is liable to dismissed. As the result, 9we answer point no.1 and 2 in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 24th April 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />