State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Somishetty Jaya Prakash Narayana vs Central Bank Of India on 23 February, 2010
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 1772 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.25 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM KADAPA. Between Somishetty Jaya Prakash Narayana S/o late S.Ramaiah, Hindu, aged 57 years Industrialist, 12/247, Upstairs, G.T.Street Proddatur-516360 Appellant/ complainant A N D Central Bank of India Proddatur, rep. by its Branch Manager Gandhi Road, Proddatur, Cuddapah District Respondent/opposite party Counsel for the Appellants Sri K.Gopala Krishna Counsel for the Respondent Sri Ch.Siva Reddy QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
& SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER TUESDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TEN Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) *** The complainant is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum, Kadapa in C.C.No.25 of 2007.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant has taken a demand draft on the name of Saikrishna Productions for Rs.5,65,000/- bearing No.044367 on 4.3.2005 from the opposite party payable at Hyderabad. Due to some reason the complainant retained the said D.D. with him along with Xerox copy of D.D. and counter foil. In the course of time, as the complainant lost the demand draft, he wrote a letter dated 31.3.200 to the opposite party informing it about the loss of the demand draft and requested for the issue of a duplicate demand draft. The opposite party vide their letter dated 4.4.2005 intimated to the complainant that the said demand draft has been paid or encashed on 16.3.2005 to Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad and rejected the request of the complainant for issuance of duplicate D.D. Thereafter the complainant made an application to the Andhra Bank under RTI Act calling upon them to furnish information regarding the alleged payment of the said amount under the demand draft. The said Andhra Bank vide their letter dated 20.11.2006 informed the complainant that the said amount covered under the said D.D. had not been paid at any branch of Andhra Bank including service centre, Hyderabad. Further the said D.D. is an account payee one and the same has to be credited to the account of Saikrishna Productions. Hence the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum and sought directions to the opposite party for payment of amount covered under D.D. along with interest, damages and costs.
Opposite party resisted the case by filing counter admitting issuance of D.D.No.044367 for Rs.5,65,000/- on 4.3.2005 drawn on Sai Krishna Productions, Hyderabad and denied that the said D.D. was lost and was not paid. The said D.D. was presented for clearance to Central Bank of India, N.B.O., Hyderabad by Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar Branch on 16.3.2005 and it was paid through clearing. The said fact was informed to the complainant through their letter dated 4.4.2005. When once the said D.D. was paid or encashed the question of issuing duplicate D.D. does not arise. It is reported by Andhra Bank Service Centre, Hyderabad that the draft in question has not been paid by any branch of A.P. Hyderabad since the D.D. was drawn on Central Bank of India. Hence it is evident that the said D.D. was paid by the Central Bank of India, N.B.O, Hyderabad to the Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar Branch clearing. Therefore it is clear that the Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar as a collecting agent has received the proceeds of the said D.D. from Central Bank of India. The Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar Branch is a necessary party to decide the case properly to ascertain all the facts. The complainant preferred a complaint before Banking Ombudsman, A.P, Hyderabad for deficiency of service in not issuing a duplicate D.D. vide complaint No.4/2005-06 and the same was dismissed on 5.9.2005. The complainant gave a notice through his advocate on 13.2.2007 to the opposite party for which they gave suitable reply on 23.2.2007.
Hence the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed this affidavit and no documents were filed by him.
On behalf of the opposite party no documents were filed.
The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainant suppressed the dismissal of the complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and also failed to specify the date place and time of loss of the D.D. and the loss of D.D. to the police.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order the complainant filed this appeal on the grounds that the District Forum has not marked the documents filed by the appellant and that Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar Branch is not a necessary party to the proceedings.
The point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
The complainant purchased a demand draft for Rs.5,65,000/- on 4.3.2005 drawn on Saikrishna Productions, Hyderabad. It is the contention of the complainant that he had retained the demand draft with him for some time and found the demand draft missing immediately to which incident, he had addressed a letter dated 31.3.2005 to the opposite party. The opposite party addressed letter dated 4.4.2005 informing the complainant that the demand draft was paid on 16.3.2005 in Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar Hyderabad. The complainant further contends that on his application under right to information Act, the Andhra Bank gave reply that the demand draft was not encashed in any of the branches of Andhra Bank in Hyderabad. It is the contention of the opposite party that the demand draft was presented to the opposite party NBO, Hyderabad by Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar, Branch Hyderabad and was through clearing.
It is clear that the amount covered under the demand draft was paid to the Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar Branch. The complainant was informed of the realization of the amount on 4.4.2005 and the complainant having received the information that the amount under the demand draft was realized by an account holder of Andhra Bank, proceeded to file a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman who dismissed his complaint filed praying for a direction to the opposite party for issuing duplicate demand draft. The Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the original demand draft was paid and as such duplicate demand draft cannot be ordered to be issued.
It is an undeniable fact that the amount under the demand draft was to be realized at the opposite party bank and it was done so by an account holder of the Andhra Bank S.R.Nagar Branch Hyderabad.
The complainant has not proceeded against the account holder of Andhra Bank who realized the amount covered under the demand draft. It is not difficult for him to get the details of the person who had realized the amount. No police complaint was filed by the complainant nor did he issue any instructions to the opposite party to stop payment of the amount. The demand draft was issued on 4.3.2005. The complainant addressed letter only on 31.3.2005 and he has not raised the objection anywhere in the complaint or in the letter that was sent to the opposite party. Absolutely there has been no evidence brought on record by the complainant in support of his claim that he had lost the demand draft and immediately after coming to know that he had lost the demand draft that he had taken necessary steps and the circumstances would speak volumes of negligence on the part of the complainant and his failure to establish at least prima facie case. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The impugned order does not require any interference by this Commission.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER Dt.23.02.2010 Kmk*