THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, EVENING BRANCH Vs. M.YOUSEPH
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-5-15
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 10,2010

The Manager State Bank Of Travancore, Evening Branch Appellant
VERSUS
M.Youseph Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT - (1.) THE appellant is is opposite party/Bank in O.P. 379/2004 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. the appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 and compensation of Rs.5,000 and cost of Rs.500 to the complainant.
(2.) IT is the case of the complainant is that he had presented a cheque of Rs.20,000 dated 30.6.2000 to the opposite party through his bank, Federal Bank, Vengara Branch on 27.7.2000. The same was returned with the endorsement refer to drawer. The complainant initiated proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act in JFCM Court by Kozhikode as C.C.No.982/2000 against one Unnikrishnan who issued the cheque. The above complaint was dismissed as the cheque was not bearing account number of the above Unnikrishnan in the opposite party bank. The appeal filed before the High Court was also dismissed. The allegation is that it is on account of lapse of the opposite party in not mentioning the account number on the cheque that the criminal proceedings happened to be ended in acquittal of the accused. Although the bank Manager was summoned he had stated that in the absence of the account number the account of the accused could not be traced. The conduct of the opposite party in not mentioning the account number of the account holder in the cheque is in violation of bankers duties in this regard. Hence, the complaint seeking for the realization of the amount covered by the cheque and compensation of Rs.50,000 towards the amount spent for the litigation etc.
(3.) THE opposite party has contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and bad for non -joinder of necessary party as the drawer of the cheque has not been impleaded. So also it is contended that there is no consumer relationship with the complainant and the opposite party and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of PW1, Exs. A1 to A6.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.