BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 242/2015
The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, 3rd main Road, Ashok Nagar, Mandya. (By Sri Eshwar Prasad.B, Advocate) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Sri.Y.P.Sathish, S/o Sri Thidigoudan Puttaswamy, Aged about 36 years, | …Respondent/s |
2. | Sri. Thidigoudan Puttaswamy, S/o Sri. Thidigoudan Choudiah, Aged about 61 years, Both are residents of B.Yerahalli village, Kothuthi Hobli, Mandya Taluka and district. (By Manee.B.P, Advocate) | |
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dt.03.02.2015 passed in CC.No.168/2014 by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Mandya, and submits that complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service in issuing the endorsement stating insufficient funds after tendering the cheque by the unknown person. The District Commission after trial, allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as a compensation for deficiency in service Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. In fact there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this appellant in spite of that the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay above said amount.
2. The complainant alleged before the District Commission that he lost one cheque which was duly signed by him in that regard he had given a police complaint and also he had intimated this appellant bank for stop payment if the cheque was tendered by any unknown person. In spite of informing the same, this appellant had issued an endorsement of insufficient funds with one Mr.B.D.Mariswamy who tendered the cheque. The complainant had no sufficient balance in his account for which the endorsement was issued. But the complainant alleged that in spite of giving a standing instructions of stop payment, the OP has received the cheque and issued memo stating insufficient funds due to which the complainant constrained to face cheque bounce before Judicial Magistrate Court u/s 138 of Negotiable instrument Act. The District Commission only considered the averments made by the complainant and allowed the complaint. In fact, this appellant had not rendered any a deficiency in service. The complainant had informed this appellant bank to cancel the cheque as soon he lost the cheque. The cancellation of cheque is not permissible and the same was informed to the complainant. Subsequently, cheque was tendered by unknown person, the same was returned back with an endorsement of insufficient funds. Since, there is no amount available in the account of the complainant. Hence, submits there is no deficiency in service and prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission in the interest of equity and justice.
3. Heard from both sides.
4. We found the complainant had lost his signed cheque while he was travelling the said cheque was unknowingly in possession of one Mr.B.D.Mariswamy. Subsequently, he tendered a same cheque for realization to the amount of Rs.2,16,000/- this appellant bank had given an endorsement of insufficient funds as there is no funds. Whereas the complainant before District Commission alleges that he had instructed this appellant bank for stop payment towards his cheque which was lost. The complainant also filed a police complaint before Jurisdiction Police station with respect to the loss of cheque. The averments made in the complaint are accepted by the District Commission and given a finding that this appellant rendered a deficiency in service and directed this appellant to pay a compensation for not considering the instructions given by the Complainant.
5. The order passed by the District Commission according to us is in accordance with law. The appellant bank ought not to issue an endorsement stating insufficient funds when the complainant had given a standing instruction for stop payment. It is well established that complainant had lost his cheque which was in possession of one unknown person Mr.B.D. Mariswamy. The said Mr.B.D.Mariswamy has misused the circumstances and tendered for realization. Subsequently, the said Mr.B.D.Mariswamy also initiated criminal
proceedings against the complainant u/s 138 of Negogitiable Instrument Act. All these scenarios created only due to deficiency in service on the part of appellant. The complainant constrained to face criminal proceedings. The appellant bank had not provided any proper reasons for why the cheque was not made stop payment under these circumstances, the award passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. We do not find any merits of appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
P*
