State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Central Bank Of India, vs Vishwanath G. Hegde, on 29 January, 2014
A-779-2003
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/03/779
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/04/2004
in Case No.32/99 of District Central Mumbai)
Central
Bank of India,
Lower
Parel Branch,
Senapati
Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai
400 013.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
Vishwanath
G. Hegde,
INFAC,
Mathuradas Mill Compound,
Senapati
Bapat Marg,
Mumbai
400 013.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE
MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT
HON'ABLE
MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr.P.S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
O R D E R Per Honble Mr. Justice R.C. Chavan President:
1.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai, allowing the consumer Complaint No.32/1999, whereby the Forum ordered the Appellant Bank to pay a sum of `11,075/-
with interest @9% per annum and further directed to pay an amount of `282/- charged by ANZ Grindlays Bank and `500/-
towards costs.
2. We have heard the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent though the Complainant was served by issuing the public notice.
3. The Complainant held an account with the Appellant Bank. He held credit card issued by ANZ Grindlays Bank. In order to pay an amount due to the ANZ Grindlays Bank, the Complainant issued cheque. This cheque was sent by Complainant by ordinary post to ANZ Grindlays Bank and yet in the next bill issued by the Bank the amount of `11,785/-
still shown as outstanding. This alerted the Complainant. When enquiries were made, the cheque was found to have been paid to the bearer - Shantaram Ramchandar Sreesagar, who presented the cheque. The Complainant alleged that this happened on account of negligence on the part of the Appellant Bank and therefore, filed consumer complaint.
4. The Appellant Bank opposed the complaint by filing reply, stating that it had acted with due diligence and had paid amount of cheque to the person who presented the cheque. It, therefore, sought dismissal of the complaint.
5. After considering the case of the parties, the Forum came to the conclusion that though the cheque bore the name of Shantaram Ramchandar Sreesagar as payee and the person who tendered it and put his signature on the back was one Vijay B. Rane. The Forum, therefore, held that the Appellant Bank had not only acted in negligent manner, but in grossly negligent manner, in clearing the said cheque and therefore, ordered that compensation to be paid to the Complainant.
6. The Ld.Counsel for the Appellant points out to us that the Appellant had tendered before the District Forum along with reply filed a letter dated 20th September, 1997 issued by the Complainant himself, in which the Complainant had categorically stated that he had inadvertently left payees name blank. He also pointed out that, Complainant in fact, admitted having sent said letter in his Affidavit filed before the Forum after the Appellants reply was filed.
In paragraph 3 he stated that he was asked by the Bank Manager to write a letter stating that he had inadvertently left the payees name blank. Bank Manager may ask the Complainant to do anything, Respondent should have thought about the consequences while writing letter and acknowledging in the letter that he had left the Payees name blank.
If the Complainant left the Payees name blank and sent the cheque by ordinary post, we fail to see as to how the Bank could be held responsible for paying the amount of the cheque to the person who presented the cheque at the Banks counter. The cheque was not even made payable to order and it was a bearer cheque.
Therefore, anybody could have presented it across the counter and obtained the money. Therefore, whether it was Shantaram Ramchandar Sreesagar, whose name appeared as the Payee in the cheque or Vijay B. Rane, who signed on the reverse of the cheque by discharging the instrument, it would not have mattered to the Bank. Observation of the Forum that Bank was negligent and grossly negligent were thoroughly uncalled for and unsustainable. This is a case where the Complainant who negligently left the payees name blank on the cheque and sent the cheque by ordinary post sought to penalize the Bank.
Bank cannot be made to suffer for this.
In view of this, we find the order thoroughly unsustainable and hence, allow the appeal, setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum. In the result consumer complaint stands dismissed.
7. Amount, if any, deposited by the Appellant be refunded to the Appellant.
Pronounced on 29th January, 2014.
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep