State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, ... vs Kum.L.K.Neena Rani D/O.Late ... on 18 January, 2010
FA BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.78/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.309/2005 DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD . Between: The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Opposite party And Kum.L.K.Neena Rani D/o.late L.K.Narayana Swamy, aged 33 years, R/o.12-2-709/74, Navodaya Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500 028 temporarily Residing at 9, Rain Basera I S.B.T. Sector-17, Chandigarh (Uttar Pradesh) rep. by GPA Holder Sri L.K.Panesh Babu, S/o.late L.K.Narayana Swamy, aged about 36 years, Occupation Advocate R/o.12-2-709/74, Navodaya Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500 028. Respondent/ Complainant. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Srinivs Survi Counsel for the Respondents. Mr.Md.Muneeruddin QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
& SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER .
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN (Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Honble Member) *** This is an appeal filed by the opposite party against which the District Forum imposed liability as prayed for by the complainant.
The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:
The complainant is the GPA holder of Kum.L.K.Neena Rani, who received a D.D. dated 4-3-2003 from Mr.MOhd.Akbar towards final settlement in a civil suit pending on the file of VIII Fast Tract Court, Hyderabad and R.C.No.350/2000 on the file of II A.R.C. Hyderabad on 5-3.2003. It was submitted that the said D.D. for Rs.2,00,000/- was presented before Vijaya Bank on 3-9-2003 and the same was sent to opposite party bank for collection but the opposite party bank returned the D.D. with an endorsement stale cheque. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party did not honor the D.D. as it was presented on the last day of its validity and came for collection on the next day by which date it became stale.
The complainant submitted that as per Ex.A14 certificate, issued by Vijaya Bank, the D.D. for Rs.2,00,000/- was presented for collection on 3-9-2003 itself at 1.30 p.m. and since 3-9-2003 happened to be the last day, the opposite party ought to have taken immediate steps for collection of the amount under the D.D. The complainant also got issued a legal notice 18-12-2003 and submitted that the opposite party ought not to have rejected the D.D. without clearing for which opposite party gave a reply. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party to pay the amount under the D.D. together with interest, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
The opposite party filed its counter and admitted that the D.D. dated 4-3-2003 was presented for collection in Vijaya Bank on 3-9-2003 and the said D.D. came for collection to it on 4-9-2003 by which date the D.D. became stale and could not be honoured. It further submitted that the complainant instead of getting the D.D revalidated by the purchase rof the instrument got issued legal notice for which they issued a suitable reply dated 9-1-2004 and inspite of this the complainant issued notice dated 18-10-2004. It further submitted that the said D.D. was presented for collection to Vijaya Bank on 3-9-2003 and the same has been sent by the said bank for collection at 1.30 p.m. and the D.D. came to the opposite party on the next day i.e. 4-9-2003 by which date it became stale and submitted that there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
In support of her case, the complainant got filed the evidence of her general power of attorney and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A15. The opposite party though did not file a separate affidavit by way of evidence nevertheless relied upon the counter which appeared to have been filed by way of an affidavit.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced by either side, the District Forum found fault with the opposite party, drawee bank for having returned the D.D. dubbing it as a stale cheque and in conformity thereof granted the relief to the complainant.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal insisting that the District Forum was carried away by Ex.A14 certificate issued by the complainants bank without properly appreciating what it conveyed and failed to address the issue whether the cheque in question was presented to the opposite party who happened to be the drawee bank for realization via the clearing house in time.
Heard both sides.
The points that arises for consideration are:
1.
As a matter of fact, which is the date on which the D.D./cheque reached the payee appellant bank?
2. For the purposes of determining the validity of presentment within the period of six months reception of the cheque at which bank is decisive or critical?
3. Whether the order of the District Forum calls for any interference?
In this case the deficiency in service that is attributed to the opposite party was put on the plank that the opposite party had no business to dishonour the cheque characterizing it as stale though the complainant admittedly presented the cheque to her own bank for crediting to her account in the said bank namely, Vijaya Bank. There is absolutely no doubt that she deposited the D.D. in question with Vijaya Bank on 3-9-2003 obviously the last date with which the period of six months validity of the instrument in question dated 4-3-2003 would run out. It is the case of the complainant, the moment she presented her D.D. to the bank, such presentment would be valid for all purposes and the drawee bank cannot have any ground to say that it was not received by it within time though obviously the said instrument was supposed to be routed through the clearing bank etc., According to the complainant the date of presentment was therefore 3-9-2003 but on the other hand, the drawee bank which was fastened with the duty of encashing it to the benefit of the payee if the same was presented within six months as super-scribed on the instrument itself marked as Ex.A1, contended that it received the instrument in question only on 4-9-2003 by which date the validity period of the D.D. in question ended one day before.
This contention of the opposite party/appellant is disputed by the complainant on two grounds. The first ground is that as a matter of fact, it was sent to the opposite party bank on 3-3-2003 itself and therefore it was well within time. For this purpose, the respondent/complainant relied solely upon Ex.A14, the text of which reads as follows:
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Sri L.K.Panesh Babu and Kum.L.K.Neena Rani, whose S.B.A/c.No. is 12251 have deposited a D.D. with its No.336677 for Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only) in our Bank on 03-9-2003, with us. The same has been sent for collection on 03-9-2003 at 1.30 p.m. As rightly pointed out, there is absolutely no indication in the above text that it was sent for collection to the opposite party as such. It only mentioned that the same had been sent for collection on 3-9-2003 that too at 1.30 p.m. Therefore, it is impossible to muster support from Ex.A14 to hold that the same was presented to the opposite party on that very day itself. On the other hand, it is very much a well known fact that sending for collection cannot be directly to the drawee bank as such as it has to be necessarily routed through a clearing house. When such is the case, it is beyond anybodys comprehension how Ex.A14 could be construed as having furnished proof of the cheque having reached the opposite party on 3-9-2003 itself. Such kind of inference is absurd as there is yet another agency, namely the clearing house, in between Vijaya Bank and the appellant bank. The appellant emphatically stated in the counter that it received the cheque on 4-9-2003, Ex.A13 is a document though tendered by the complainant that was actually authored by the opposite party. The said document is dated 4-9-2003 and it was clearly noted therein that the instrument in question was a stale cheque and got to be revalidated. The complainant failed to prove by resorting to proper procedure of summoning to establish that the cheque reached the opposite party on 3-9-2003 itself. On the other hand it relied upon Ex.A14 only which definitely did not bear any material to link up its sending for clearance was to the opposite party bank.
Moreover, even according to Ex.A14, it was sent at 1.30 p.m. The complainant ought to have placed before the District Forum as to what would be the steps that an instrument meant for clearance would pass through and whether it was really possible for the instrument to reach the opposite party on that day itself. When the flow of the events facilitating such transmission is obviously interdicted by the necessity of the instrument being routed through yet another agency, namely the clearing house, tThe District Forum erroneously relied upon Ex.A14 to draw far reaching inferences not warranted from its text. Such kind of conjectures cannot take the place of concrete proof. It is the complainant that has to fully prove her case as the matter was taken to a position of cliff hanging in as much as the complainant herself had opted to present the cheque on the last day that too to her own banker leaving further more process before the proceeds of the said instrument could be actually realized.
The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 1161 in SHRI ISHAR ALLOYS STEELS LTD., v. JAYASWALS NECO LTD., makes it abundantly clear that presentation means presentation to the drawee bank. Here in this case the complainant miserably failed to prove that the cheque was presented to the drawee bank in contradistinction to his own bank before the dead line or expiration of six months validity period. Thus we are of the opinion that the decision of the District Forum cannot be upheld.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and thereby dismissing the complaint before it but without costs in the circumstances of the case.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.18-1-2010