State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Wainganga Kshetriya ... vs Moreshwar S/O Shriram Khandait & Anr. on 19 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR 5th floor, Administrative Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01 Appeal No. A/08/513 (Arising out of Order dtd.16.05.2008 in Complaint No. CC/08/5 of District Forum, Bhandara) Branch Manager, Wainganga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Bhandara, Branch Dighori (Mothi) Tah. Lakhandur, Dist. Bhandara (M.S.) .Appellant(s) Versus 1. Moreshwar s/o Shriram Khandait R/o village & Post - Dighori (Mothi) Tah. Lakhandur, Dist. Bhandara (M.S.) 2. The Branch Manager Andhra Bank, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad (A.P.) Respondent(s) BEFORE: Honble Mr B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member Hon'ble Smt.Jayshree Yengal, Member Hon'ble Mr N. Arumugam, Member PRESENT: Adv. Mr K I Ramteke ..for the Appellant In person .....Respondent No.1 Adv. Mr B B Sharma .....Respondent No.2 JUDGMENT
(Passed on 19.08.2013) Per Mr B A Shaikh, Honble Presiding Member
1. This appeal is preferred against order dtd. 16.05.2008 passed by District Forum, Bhandara in CC/08/05 by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that he had undergone surgery in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. He bore expenses of that surgery. Later on the Govt. of Maharashtra under the Chief Minister Grant in Aid, paid Rs.10,000/- to the Apollo Hospital for payment to the complainant. It was received by the Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad in the month of Aug. 2006. The said Hospital sent cheque for Rs.10,000/- dtd.16.08.2006 drawn on Andhra Bank Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, which is Opposite Party No.2 (for short O.P.No.2) by post to the complainant. The complainant received the same in the first week of Sep. 2006. The complainant presented that cheque on 12.09.2006 to Opposite Party No.1 Bank (for short O.P.No.1) for crediting amount of that cheque to his account No. 39 maintained by the said O.P.No.1 Bank. The said amount was not credited to the account of the complainant, though the complainant made repeated oral and written requests to O.P.No.1. Lastly, the complainant served legal notice to O.P.No.1 & 2 and Apollo Hospital on 26.12.2007. Despite of service of notice, the said amount was not credited to his bank account.
Therefore, he filed the complaint against O.P.Nos.1 & 2 before District Forum, Bhandara.
3. The O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 appeared before the Forum below and resisted the complaint by filing their respective written version. The O.P. No.1 admitted that it received the cheque for Rs.10,000/- on 12.09.2006 from the complainant. However, it submitted that it sent the said cheque to O.P. No.2 Bank for clearance. The said O.P. No.2 did not clear that cheque despite of writing several letters to it. On 25.01.2008 the O.P.No.1 Bank learnt that the said cheque was not drawn on the O.P.No.2 Jubilee Hills Branch; but it was drawn on its Apollo Hospital Branch. The O.P. No.1 therefore, made letter correspondence with Apollo Hospital Branch, which had sent the cheque No.9940 on 06.10.2007 to the O.P.No.1 but it was lost. Therefore, the O.P.No.1 demanded duplicate cheque on 26.01.2008 and it was sent on 16.12.2008 by Apollo Hospital Branch to o.p. No.1 after o.p.No.1 submitted to it indemnity bond. The amount of Rs.9,885/- was deposited in the account of the complainant on 16.02.2008 after deducted Rs.55/- from Rs.9,940/- of which duplicate cheque was received from Apollo Hospital Branch. Therefore, it is submitted by O.P.No.1 that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The O.P.No.2 submitted that the complainant is not its consumer and that it had sent the cheque for Rs.9,940/- dtd. 06.10.2006 to o.p.No.1 on 09.10.2006. It also submitted that a duplicate cheque for the aforesaid amount was also sent to the O.P.No.1 on 11.02.2008 as O.P.No.1 had written letter dtd.06.10.2006 to it informing that earlier cheque of Rs.9,940/- has been lost and it demanded duplicate cheque. It, thus, submitted that there is no deficiency in service provided by it to the complainant and hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
5. The Forum below after going through the evidence brought on record found that due to the fault of O.P.No.1, the delay was occurred from the month of Oct. 2006 till 16.02.2008 in crediting the amount of cheque to the account of the complainant maintained by O.P.No.1 and therefore, it is deficiency in service provided by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant. It therefore, directed O.P.No.1 to pay interest @ 9% p.a. over Rs.9,940/- from 01.11.2006 to 16.02.2008 to the complainant. It also directed O.P.No.1 to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of complaint to the complainant. It dismissed the complaint as against the O.P.No.2.
6. Being aggrieved by that order the original O.P. No.1 has preferred this appeal.
7. We have heard advocates of the appellant and respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 in person. We also perused the documents placed before us by both sides.
8. The sum & substance of submission of Ld. Advocate of the appellant is that the appellant had made several letter correspondence with the respondent No.2 herein and obtained from its Apollo Hospital Branch duplicate Demand Draft (D.D.) and credited amount of that D.D. to the account of complainant on 16.02.2008 and no intentional delay was occurred on the part of the appellant and therefore, the Forum below committed error in awarding interest, compensation and cost as per impugned order and hence it may be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate of respondent No.2 submitted that as the appellant had informed the respondent No.2 that the D.D. dtd. 06.10.2007 for Rs.9,940/- was lost in transit, the respondent No.2 issued duplicate D.D. immediately on receiving the indemnity bond from the appellant and therefore, the Forum below has rightly dismissed the complaint against the respondent No.2 herein.
10. The respondent No.1 / org. complainant in his argument supported the impugned order and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
11. Admittedly, the cheque for Rs.10,000/- was submitted by respondent No.1 herein to the appellant on 12.09.2006 and it was the responsibility of the appellant only to get its clearance as early as possible and after due clearance within reasonable time it shall credit amount of the said cheque to the account of the complainant maintained by it.
Admittedly, after filing of the complaint by the complainant, before Forum below, the said amount was credited to the said account of the complainant on 16.02.2008. No doubt, the appellant had made various letter correspondence with respondent No.2 and with the Apollo Hospital Branch of respondent No.2 and obtained duplicate Demand Draft of the aforesaid amount as the earlier chqeue submitted by the complainant was lost.
11. We find that the complainant is not responsible for loss of his cheque or for delay in crediting amount of that cheque to his account. From the evidence brought on record, we find that due to the negligence of appellant only, the said cheque has been lost and hence, the respondent No.2 herein issued duplicate D.D. / cheque to the appellant immediately after receiving indemnity bond from the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has provided deficient service to the complainant. The Forum below has rightly awarded interest @ 9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount of Rs.9,940/- for the aforesaid delay from 01.11.2006 to 16.02.2008. Moreover, the Forum below has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
12. We find no merits in this appeal and hence, it deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER i.
The appeal is dismissed.
ii.
No order as to cost in this appeal.
iii.
Copy of this order be furnished to the parties.
[ B. A. SHAIKH ] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER sj