State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager Indian Overseas Bank vs G.Ravendran on 31 August, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI PRESENT: Hon'ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH :: PRESIDENT FA. No. 430/2023 ( As against order in CC.No.189/2022 dated 27.10.2022 on the file of DCDRC,Perambalur) DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2023 The Manager Indian Overseas Bank, No. 128, Arch Bishop Arullappa Towers, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 004 ..Appellant/1st opposite party Vs 1.
G.Raveendran,
2. R.Srekala, Both are residing at No.1/2, Sunview Apartment, Thiruveedi Amman Kovil, 3rd street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041 ..Respondents1 &2/complainants
3. The Manager, Indian Bank, No.5, West Tank Square, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041 .3rd Respondent/2nd opposite party Counsel for the Appellant/1st opposite party : M/s K.K.Sivashanmugam Counsel for the R-1 and R2/complainants : M/s A.Palaniappan The Respondents 1 and 2 as complainants had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties 1 and 2 praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order and partly allowed the complaint, in part. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1 and 2, praying to set aside the order of the District Commission, Perambalur dt. 27.10.2022 in CC. No.159/2022.
This appeal came before us for hearing finally, today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the appellants, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.
THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court)
1. The 1st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellants herein.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainants are husband and wife. The 1st complainant is having a savings bank account with the Indian Overseas Bank and 2nd complainant is having her savings bank account with the 2nd opposite party and the complainants are running a shop for their livelihood at Thiruvanmiyur. The 1st complainant deposited his bank cheque for Rs.1 lakh in favour of his wife Sreekala R at the 2nd op bank on 14.9.2017 by filling appropriate challan. Acknowledgment issued for the receipt by bank staff. But the cheque amount has not been credited into the 2nd complainant account till 17.9.2017. immediately both the complainants approached the 2nd opposite party and gave a complaint asking for an explanation with regard to the presentation of cheque with the second opposite party bank which has been encashed across the counter at the 1st op bank, by a third cheque with the 2nd opposite party.
hence the complainant approached the Commissioner of police on 23.5.2018 and the police have arrested one R.Sureshkumar. The attitude of the opposite parties in not taking any steps to trace the missing cheque, amounts to deficiency in service which amounts to breach of trust. Hence the complaint filed by the complainants praying to direct the ops severally and individually to pay the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12% and Rs.4 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service to pay Rs.5500/- towards cost.
3. In spite of receipt of notice, the opposite parties had not appeared before this Commission and hence the opposite parties were set exparte.
4. Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1st opposite party for setting aside the order and for chance to contest the case on merits.
5. Before this commission, the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore they sought to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
6. When the case had come up before this Commission on 31.8.2023, after hearing the submission of both sides this commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the complaint for the appellant/opposite party-1 and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite party 1 to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit. However considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties in not appearing before the District Commission, we impose a cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the legal-aid account of the State Commission on or before 30.8.2023. Today when the matter appeared in the list, it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with. Hence the appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Perambalur in C.C.No.159/2022 dt.27.10.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Perambalur, for fresh disposal according to law and on merits, after hearing bothsides.
District Commission is directed to issue notice to the parties to appear before the District Commission, Perambalur, for further proceedings. The appellant/1st opposite party is directed to file vakalat, version, proof affidavit and documents and written arguments if any on the same day itself.
The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.
Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellant/1st opposite party before this commission.
R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT