BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO Vs. SANATH V.SHUKLA
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2012-1-33
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 30,2012

MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
Sanath V.Shukla Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The challenges to the order is dated 24.01.2011 in C.C.511/2009, on the file of the District Forum, Chennai [North], wherein, a direction has been given to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation as well as costs of Rs.5,000/- against the opposite parties.
(2.) The complainant/respondent having savings bank account, in the first opposite party bank, issued a cheque in favour of HDFC Ltd., Anand Branch Kheda District, Gujarat State, dated 15.06.2009 for the installment payment of Rs.15,760/-, which was deposited for collection with the second opposite party. The complainant, though had the balance of more than Rs.1 lakh, the second opposite party negligently dishonoured the cheque with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" thereby affecting the reputation of the complainant as well as staining the relationship with the HDFC Bank, causing mental agony. The complainant, complaining the deficiency, claiming compensation, legal notice was issued and its failure to realize the amount, the complainant is constrained to file the case, for the recovery a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation for mental agony, in addition, costs of Rs.5,000/-.
(3.) The opposite parties/appellants, admitting the account maintained by the complainant, as well as issuance of cheque in favour of HDFC Ltd., resisted the case that the HDFC Ltd., functioning at Vadodara, instead of sending the outstation cheque for collection through National Clearing, routed the cheque through the local clearing, resulting, the cheque reaching the second opposite party, which had inadvertently and mistakenly returned the cheque as "Insufficient Funds", which was explained when notice was issued, that in fact, HDFC Ltd., alone is responsible, having wrongly routed the cheque in question, that the case filed without obtaining permission under Section 11 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable, and that since they have not committed any negligence deliberately or wantonly, there is no question of mental agony or for that compensation, praying for the dismissal of the case.;


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