KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 705/2015
JUDGMENT DATED: 20.12.2018
(Against the order in C.C. 423/2011 of CDRF, Thrissur)
PRESENT :
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPELLANT:
C.K. Devassy Master, Retired Teacher, Chittilappilly Kunnath House, Chalakkal, Parappur P.O, Thrissur.
(By Adv. Asok Kumar. J.S)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- The Senior Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Puzhakkal Branch, Amalanagar P.O, Thrissur.
- The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, KSHB Complex, Vikar Nagar, East Hill Road, Kozhikode.
- The Chairman and Managing Director, Union Bank of India, Central Office, 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai.
(By Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
Complainant is the appellant. His complaint claiming compensation from the opposite parties, three in number, alleging deficiency in service was dismissed by the lower forum directing him to pay compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the Order complainant has preferred the appeal.
2. Complainant approached the Puzhakkal branch of the opposite parties, Union Bank of India, the officers and Chairman of which are proceeded as opposite parties 1 to 3 in the complaint, to encash a cheque for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- drawn by one Abimanue in favour of his son. Though it was a bearer cheque the branch officials refused to honour the cheque and on his insistence a return memo was issued showing the reason “refer to Kalamassery branch brought by 3rd party”. He was also ill treated by the bank officials, was the case of the complainant. According to the complainant his son did not have an account in that branch but only in the Kalamassery branch of the Union Bank of India. Alleging deficiency in service complainant after issuing a notice filed the complaint claiming compensation. Opposite parties resisted the claim denying the allegations of deficiency in service and also of ill treating the complainant. Complainant was a third party and even his son in whose favour the instrument produced before the branch was drawn was having an account only in the Kalamassery branch of the bank, according to the opposite parties. Cash payment across the counter on the basis of cheque produced to third party, when his identity could not be established, was not possible and, therefore, return memo was issued for production of the instrument before the Kalamassery branch where his son maintained the account. Complainant had previously moved the Banking Ombudsman but that too was turned down, according to the opposite parties.
3. The lower forum appreciating the materials produced by both sides finding no merit in the case canvassed by the complainant dismissed his complaint with compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite parties. Complainant has, therefore, preferred this appeal.
4. We heard the counsel on both sides and perused the records.
5. Admittedly complainant or his son in whose favour the instrument was drawn was not maintaining an account in the Puzhakkal branch of Union Bank of India. The cheque issued in favour of his son was a bearer cheque does not confer unfettered right to the complainant to receive cash from any branch of the Union Bank of India. No doubt it is open to the bank where the instrument presented to accept it and pay the cash subject to satisfaction of the identity of the bearer who has produced the instrument. However, where it is shown that the bearer who produced was not the payee named in the instrument and neither the bearer nor the payee maintained any account in the branch where it was presented, returning of the cheque for presentation before the branch where the payee maintained account cannot at all be found fault with. That alone was done in the present case by the bank officials of the Puzhakkal branch. There is no satisfactory evidence to sustain the allegation of the complainant that he was ill treated by the bank officials when he presented the cheque for encashment.
6. Though on factual aspects we find the claim made by the complainant for compensation alleging deficiency in service has no merit, we cannot appreciate the finding entered by the forum that the complainant was not a consumer, to dismiss his complaint. Complainant is certainly a consumer who had every right to present the bearer cheque issued in favour of his son for encashment before the bank. He need not be an account holder of the bank to claim the status of a consumer. The bank before which the cheque was presented was asked to honour the cheque issued by one of its account holders by the complainant as the bearer of that instrument. In the present case the bank was within its right to refuse cash payment and direct the complainant to approach the bank where the payee named in the instrument maintained the account. That circumstance does not in any way affect the status of the complainant as a consumer to claim service from the bank for honouring his cheque. So the finding entered by the forum that the complainant is not a consumer to dismiss his complaint is erroneous and wrong. The lower forum has also found that the complainant in naming the Chairman and also senior officers of the bank as opposite parties was wrong, to award compensatory cost to them. Essentially complainant was proceeded against the bank, and to do so he made the officers and Chairman of the bank as opposite parties. That need not be viewed seriously to mulct him with liability to pay compensatory cost to them. Compensatory cost awarded by the lower forum is liable to be vacated, and we do so.
In the result, upholding the Order of dismissal of the complaint, we vacate the Order directing the complainant to pay compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite parties. Sum of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the appellant to entertain his appeal shall be refunded, on his application.
Parties are directed to suffer their costs.
JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb
