Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Vasant S/O. Devrao Vanve vs 1. The Branch Manager, Bank Of ... on 10 October, 2011

                                     1               F.A.No.: 52,53-10

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
       MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
                                 Date of filing : 25.01.2010
                                 Date of Order: 10.10.2011
         (1)

FIRST APPEAL NO.: 52 OF 2010
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 81 OF 2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: BEED.

Vasant S/o. Devrao Vanve
R/o. Ramtirth, Ayodhya Nagar,
MIDC, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.                  ...Appellant

      -Versus-
1. The Branch Manager,
   Bank of Maharasthra,
   Branch Chhatrapati Sankul,
  Annabhau Sathe Chowk, Beed,
   Tq. & Dist. Beed.

2. The Branch Manager,
   Bank of Maharasthra,
   Branch Mundhawa, Pune,
   Tq. & Dist. Pune.                              ...Respondents

                                ... Respondent
            (2)

FIRST APPEAL NO.: 53 OF 2010
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 83 OF 2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: BEED.

Sau. Radhabai w/o. Vasantrao Vanve
R/o. Ramtirth, Ayodhya Nagar,
MIDC, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.                  ...Appellant

      -Versus-
1. The Branch Manager,
   Bank of Maharasthra,
   Branch Chhatrapati Sankul,
  Annabhau Sathe Chowk, Beed,
   Tq. & Dist. Beed.
                                        2                           F.A.No.: 52,53-10



2. The Branch Manager,
   Bank of Maharasthra,
   Branch Mundhawa, Pune,
   Tq. & Dist. Pune.                                 ...Respondents

Coram : Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.

Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.

Present: Adv. Shri. R. D. Kahadap, for appellant.

Adv. Shri. N. N. Kapadia,for respondent.

In Appeal No.53/2010 Adv. Shri. S. D. Ghayal, for respondent No. 2

- :: ORAL ORDER ::-

Per Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.

1. Vasant Devrao Vanve and Radhabai Vanve, original complainants filed these appeals for enhancement of compensation granted by the Forum.

2. Facts of the complaint are as under:

Complainant received the cheque issued by one Bhanudas Pathare for Rs. 15,00,000/-. Said cheque was of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Mundhawa, Dist. Pune. Account number was 1621 and cheuqe No.053098411014029 dated 03.10.2008. It is alleged by complainant that, after receipt of said cheque he deposited said cheque in the Bank of Maharashtra, Beed for encashment. It was informed by Bank that for the clearance of cheque 15 days time will required.

On 20th March, 2009 complainant approached to Bank and enquired about the encashment, but it was informed by opponent No.1 that said cheque was returned due to insufficient funds in the account. It is alleged by complainant that though there is sufficient fund in the account of said Bhanudas Pathare cheque was returned with false ground. Therefore he approached the Forum for the demand of cheque amount with compensation.

3. Opponent No.1 & 2 appeared before Forum and denied the complaint. It is submitted by opponent No.1 that after receipt of cheque it was forwarded to Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Mundhawa. It was returned due to 3 F.A.No.: 52,53-10 insufficiency of funds, therefore there was no deficiency on the part of opponent No.1.

4. Opponent No.2 denied the claim on the ground that, as there was no sufficient fund cheque was rightly returned. It is further submitted that Bhanudas Pathare who issued the cheuqe was not made party to the complaint therefore complaint is not maintainable.

5. After hearing both the parties District Forum directed opponent No.2 to pay Rs.8,000/- to Vasantrao Vanve and to pay Rs.1,000/- to Radhabai Vanve for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- for the cost to Vasant Vanve and Rs. 1,000/- for cost to Radhabai Vanve. Both the complainants filed these appeals for enhancement of compensation. Adv. Shri.Kahadap appeared for appellant. Adv. Shri. N. N. Kapadia appeared for respondent. In Appeal No.53/2010 Adv. Shri. S. D. Ghayal appeared for respondent No. 2. Adv. Khadap submitted that though there is sufficient fund in the account of Bhaunudas Pathare cheque was returned on the ground of insufficient funds. Non receipt of amount caused mental torture and financial loss to the complainant, therefore District Forum should have granted the amount of cheque which was denied on flimsy ground by the Bank. In support of his contention he relied on- Autocade Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors, reported in III-2010 CPJ - 280 (NC). It is held by National Commission that, "Enough balance in account of complainant to honour at least 3 out of 5 cheques - Contentions of Bank not accepted - Ground of insufficiency of funds, not tenable - Return of 3 cheques of small amounts shown complainant in poor light before trader community - Serious set back to goodwill and reputation - Difficult to quantify non-pecuniary loss suffered - Bank directed to pay lumpsum compensation with costs."

Adv. N. N. Kapadia appeared for Bank submitted that, as there was no sufficient amount in the account of one Shri. Bhanudas Pathare, cheques were returned with endorsement "insufficient fund". Said fact was not denied by Bhanudas Pathare who issued the cheque. Said Pathare not made party to the complaint. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied on- Corporation Bank Vs. N.C.S. Films, reported in III (2007) CPJ 30 (NC). It is held by National Commission that, "cheque presented again could not have paid. Account of drawer inoperative - Complaint maintainable for loss of cheque in transit - Not for recovery of entire cheque amount."

6. We heard both counsels at length at admission stage and decided appeal with the consent of both counsels. Cheque issued by one Bhanudas Pathare was deposited by complainant in the opponent Bank. Opponent Bank sent the cheque for clearance to Branch, Pune. Cheque returned without encashment on the ground that, there is no sufficient fund in the account of Bhanudas Pathare. District Forum rightly considered the return of cheque, without considering the factual position by the Bank and granted the compensation for return of cheuqe without encashment. In our view, the compensation granted by Forum is sufficient. Complainant is not entitled to cheque amount as per settled position of law. Hence,

-:: ORDER ::-

                               *        Both appeals are dismissed summarily.
                               *       Pronounced in open court.
                               *       No order as to cost.


     (K. B. Gawali)         (Mrs.Uma S. Bora)                 (Mr. D. N. Admane)
       Member                  Member                     Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar