STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. P. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner State Bank of India (SBI) has challenged the impugned order dated 29.02.2012, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in FA No. 778/2010, "State Bank of India & Ors. vs. P. Murugan", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Forum on 23.06.2010 in consumer complaint No. CC/6/2009, filed by the present respondent P. Murugan, allowing the said complaint, was confirmed.

(2.) The complainant/respondent P. Murugan stated in his consumer complaint No. 6/09 filed before the District Forum that he deposited a cheque bearing No. 983039 dated 01.03.2007 for value of Rs. 95,000/- with the branch of the State Bank of India at Devathanapatty, Theni District on 20.08.2007 for collection of amount in question. The said cheque had been issued by one P. Manmathan on the post office savings bank Devathanapatty. The complainant approached the said branch after a week of the said deposit and he was asked to come after two days. When he contacted the Branch after 2 days, he was asked to come again on 26.10.2007 evening. On that date, the OP Branch informed him that the cheque had been returned and he was asked to take back the cheque after production of the counter foil of the deposit of the cheque. The complainant demanded that the return memo issued by the Post Office should be given to him, but the OP Branch failed to give him the return memo. However, the said branch gave a receipt dated 26.10.2007, saying that the cheque bearing No. 983039 was with them. It has been alleged in the complaint that the said cheque was sent for collection on 03.11.2007 only, thus causing a delay of 2 1/2 months after the deposit of the said cheque with the Branch. The return memo was issued by the Post Office on 05.11.2007, which was given to the complainant on 26.11.2007. The complainant stated that the Branch Manager of the SBI Branch was a friend of P. Manmathan, who had issued the cheque and hence, they caused the said delay in sending the cheque to the post office just to help the drawer of the cheque. In view of the conduct of the OP-3 Branch, the cheque had become invalid and hence, the complainant was put to a great loss on that account. Through the consumer complaint in question, the complainants sought directions from the District From for payment of cheque amount of Rs. 95,000/- alongwith interest @12% from the date of presentation of the cheque, i.e., 20.08.2007 till realisation and also a sum of Rs. 1,01,650/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 1 lakh as compensation against mental harassment.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP-4 S. Rajasekaran, who was the branch Manager of OP-3 at that time, saying that the cheque had been sent to the local post office on the next day of the presentation of the same to the Bank, but the Post office refused to receive the cheque, saying that a court case was pending in the matter and the cheque will be honoured only after the disposal of the said court case. The above fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant by the Branch, but the cheque was kept in the Branch at the request of the complainant. The OP-4 further stated that in fact, Mr. Manmathan had lost the cheque book issued by the Post Office, containing the cheques bearing nos. 983020 to 983040 on 13.12.2006 and a report to that effect had been made with the local police. The cheque in dispute is also one of the cheques lost by Mr. Manmathan and, therefore, the post office did not honour the cheque. The OP-4 denied the allegations that there was any collusion between him and the drawer of the cheque. A copy of the letter dated 05.11.2007 issued by the post office Devathanapatty has also been placed on record which says that cheque No. 983039 was involved in a court case. The OP-4 stated that the allegations levelled in the complaint had no basis. The OP-3 Branch also filed their written version before the District Forum, saying that they adopted the reply filed by the OP-4.