R DURAISWAMY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in COP No. 92/96 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore, is the appellant herein. The grievance of the complainant was as follows: One R.Perumal had issued a cheque to the complainant for Rs. 30,000. The complainant went to the State Bank of India, Vellore Main Branch for getting that amount. The cheque was received by the staff of the bank. There was also an endorsement made to pay cash. However, subsequently, the cheque was given back to the complainant stating that there were "insufficient funds" of the drawer in the account with the bank. According to the complainant, there was collusion between the drawer of the cheque and the bank officials, particularly, the cashier of the bank impleaded as 3rd opposite party and that though funds were available with the bank in the account of the drawer, just to oblige the said Perumal, the opposite party bank had returned the cheque on the ground that there were no sufficient funds. It was the further case of the complainant that on the very same day, the said Perumal had deposited a Central Government cheque for Rs. 33,000 and the stand of the bank that the funds were insufficient could not therefore be accepted. It was a case of mere transfer from the Central Government account to the account of the said Perumal and if it had been done immediately the complainant would have realized the value of the cheque from the bank. Alleging deficiency in service, claiming the value of the cheque returned without payment and also claiming compensation, the complaint came to be filed.

(2.) THE stand of the opposite party was that the said Perumal deposited the cheque of the Central Government, but before it could be credited to the account he took away the cheque with the result the cheque given by Perumal to the complainant had to be returned without payment. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It was also contended that the complainant was not a consumer and the complaint was not maintainable.

(3.) THE District Forum answered the question in favour of the complainant that the complainant was a beneficiary and the complaint would be maintainable by him However, with regard to the liability on the part of the bank to pay the cheque value, the District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service in that the said Perumal had taken return of the cheque deposited by him and because there were no funds available in the said account the bank had rightly returned the cheque to the complainant . So holding by order dated 14.12.2001 the District Forum dismissed the complaint. It is against that the present appeal has been filed.