State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Authorized Officer, vs Bharath R on 17 October, 2022
1 A/655/2021
Date of Filing : 01.09.2021
Date of Disposal :17.10.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.655/2021
1. The Authorized Officer,
HDFC Bank Ltd,
Muncipal No.8/24, Richmond Road,
Corporation Division No.61,
Bengaluru-25.
Branch Code 523.
2. The Branch Manager
HDFC Bank, No.52,
1st Main, Near Nagarabhavi BDA
Complex, Annapoorneshwari Nagar,
Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru-72. ..Appellant/s
(By Smt.Shilpa Sharad, Advocate)
Vs
Bharath R
S/o Ramanna,
Aged about 30 Years,
No.45, 5th Main, B Main,
Madhuramma Layout,
Srigandhanagar,
Vishwaneedam Post,
KTG College, 40 Feet Road,
2 A/655/2021
Bangalore-92. ..Respondent/s
(By Sri.SKS, Advocate)
ORDER
BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by OP.1 & 2/Appellants aggrieved by the order dtd.22.07.2021 passed in CC/1848/2017 on the file of Bengaluru 3rd Addl., District Forum.
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order and heard the learned counsels.
3. Learned counsel submits that, Commission below ignoring all norms recorded wrong findings while directing to pay Rs.3 lakhs to the Complainant with interest at 6% p.a. from 26.12.2016 and further awarded cost of Rs.65,000/- to be paid within 30 days from the date of order, otherwise, it carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of non payment.
4. It is the case of Mr.Bharath a consumer that one Mr.Sunil Babu had given cheque bearing no.000013 dtd.23.11.2016 drawn on Bank of India in his favour. The said cheque was presented in OP.2 bank on 23.12.2016 for encashment and thereafter he has repeatedly approached the OPs for return of the dishonoured cheque along with endorsement. However, received a letter 3 A/655/2021 dtd.17.02.2017 stating that cheque dtd.23.11.2016 is misplaced. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that Mr.Sunil Babu is not made a party in the complaint. According to OP bank the cheque was sent through Professional Couriers was misplaced or lost in transit and Professional Couriers is not made party. In our view, it is not necessary to implead Professional Couriers as one of the party in consumer complaint since the service availed by bank from Professional Couriers is entirely different and the Complainant is nothing to do with the said service availed by bank and it is not necessary to implead Professional Couriers as one of the party in the complaint, but facts remain that Mr.Sunil Babu was not made a party and further they had not obtained duplicate cheque as provided U/s.45A of NI Act to seek legal remedy against Mr.Sunil Babu for having issued cheque for Rs.3 lakhs in his favour which came to be intimated to the Complainant by banker that cheque has been returned unpaid by the drawee bank for the reasons payment stopped by the drawer, in other words, Mr.Sunil Babu having given the cheque intimated to the bank to stop payment, accordingly, it was acted upon, but the Commission below failed to consider all these niceties of facts before recording findings in favour of the Complainant. It is 4 A/655/2021 wonder, Commission below awarded Rs.3 lakhs in favour of the Complainant, which is the amount covered under the cheque given by Mr.Sunil Babu, ignoring that the money to be payable by banker is a public money. The Commission below further awarded Rs.65,000/- as compensation and interest at 6% p.a. is again in our view is not only perverse, arbitrary but also contrary to the facts and law. In such conclusion, the Commission sitting on the appeal, keeping in mind the principle enunciated in RP/615/2018 decided by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of B.Sitharam Reddy vs. Manager, Dena Bank & two others in consideration of all facts of the case on hand, for having lost the cheque presented by the Complainant, said to have sent through Professional Couriers to the address of the Complainant, further considering the information passed to the Complainant that no amount will be charge for obtaining endorsement to approach court of law, since Appellant still can avail legal remedy under NI Act, as such, in our view, an amount of Rs.2,500/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently set aside the order dtd.22/07/2021 on the file of Bengaluru 3rd Addl., District Forum. Consequently awarded Rs.2,500/- payable to the Complainant and dispose of the complaint with a direction 5 A/655/2021 to the Commission to retain Rs.2,500/- payable to Complainant out of the statutory amount and return balance in favour of Appellants with proper identification by his advocate.
5. Return the LCR to the District Commission.
6. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS*