K.V. SHEEBA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by order dated 18.10.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'State Commission') petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. Brief facts are that, petitioner's husband who was working in Mexico in America has sent two cheques of Canara Bank, Payyannur for Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 25,000 respectively, drawn in favour of the petitioner. The said cheques were presented by somebody else before the respondent-opposite party. One of the cheques for Rs. 2 lakh, was encashed and the other one was not paid. It is alleged that respondent did not take proper care and caution hi disbursing the cheque amounts. Alleging deficiency in service, petitioner filed a complaint praying that respondents pay the cheque amount of Rs. 2 lakh with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 and cost of Rs. 5,000.

(2.) Respondents in their written version pleaded that two cheques were presented at the counter of the respondent's bank on 10.2.2004, drawn in favour of Sheeba K.V.-Petitioner. For cheque of Rs. 2 lakh, token No. 24 was given and for other cheque token No. 78 was given. It was stated that the cheques were bearer cheques and as per usual practice, the cheques were liable to be paid. It was further stated that though cheque for Rs. 2 lakh was disbursed to the bearer, who was a lady, the amount for the other cheque was not received during the working hours. Hence, they contacted the petitioner over phone and came to know that the cheques were produced by somebody else. Since the cheque for Rs. 2 lakh was presented by a lady, there was no occasion to suspect the genuineness of the presentation of the cheque and it was only due to the fact that the second cheque was presented by a man that they tried to obtain the signature of the bearer and as the person was missing from the counter, the amount was not paid. Thus, respondents had acted only according to the banking procedure. There was no deficiency in service. Respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

(3.) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (for short, 'District Forum'), vide its order dated 18.5.2009, allowed the complaint of the petitioner.