S. SAKTHIVELU vs State Bank of India

-THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE Complainant, who is a Partnership Firm, is carrying on business as Exporters and Importers and Commission Agents. THE complainant purchased from the Opposite Party State Bank of India, Kumbakonam, four Demand Drafts payable at Hiriyur Branch of the State Bank of Mysore. THEy are: (1) D.D No. 780439, dated 12.2.93 for Rs. 35,000/-; (2) D.D. No. 780440, dated 12.2.93 for Rs. 35,000/-; (3) D.D. No. 448656, dated 12.2.93 for Rs. 1,00,000/-; and (4) D.D. No.'' 448657, dated 12.2.93 for Rs. 1,00,000/-. THE Complainant''s Partner Mr. Selvamani went to Hiriyur for procuring groundnut seeds for export and after purchasing the groundnut seeds the 4 drafts were handed over to the Vendor M/ s. Mahaveer Commercial for payment of sale consideration. THE Hiriyur Branch of State Bank of Mysore honoured the first two drafts and dishonoured the other two drafts of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on the ground that these two drafts did not contain the signature of the second officer. THE Complainant''s Partner was put to much shame, mental agony and pain. Hence this complaint for compensation. The Opposite Party admitted the issue of two drafts of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. They were presented to the State Bank of Mysore, Hiriyur Branch on 15.2.93 and they were returned for want of second officer''s signature of the Opposite Party issuing Bank. The Partner came to Kumbakonam and represented the said drafts for the second officer''s signature and thereafter the Opposite Party complied with the request and handed over the drafts to the Complainant''s Partner Mr. Sakthivelu on 16.2.93 with a covering letter addressing to State Bank of Mysore, Hiriyur. A telegram was also issued to the State Bank of Mysore by the State Bank of India, Hiriyur on 16.3.93. Consequently, the drafts were honoured and the amount was paid by the State Bank of Mysore, Hiriyur. The Opposite Party denied that there was any deficiency in service on its part. It contended that the State Bank of Mysore, Hiriyur branch ought to have telegraphically communicated with the Opposite Party confirming the drafts and paid the amount. There was, therefore, deficiency only on the part of the State Bank of Mysore, Hiriyur branch.

Exs. A1 to A11 and B1 to B6 are marked by consent. Proof Affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

THE point for consideration is whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and to what relief, if any, is the Complainant entitled. It is admitted on both hands that the Opposite Party issued two demand drafts to the Complainant''s firm on 12.2.93 for Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The Photo copy of these drafts are marked as Exs. A1 & A2. The Complainant''s Partner Mr. Selvamani had been to go Hiriyur and purchased groundnut seeds and after purchasing, he has handed over the two drafts to the Vendor M/s. Mahaveer Commercial. The Vendor has presented these drafts to the State Bank of Mysore, Hiriyur branch, which dishonoured these two drafts on the ground that the drafts did not bear the 2nd officer''s signature. According to the Complainant, its Partner Mr. Selvamani was put to much shame and had suffered much mental pain and agony. He returned to Kumbakonam with the dishonoured drafts, presented them to opposite Party on 16.2.93, got the 2nd officer''s signature and sent them again to the Vendor M/s. Mahaveer Commercial, which represented the same and got the money. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that there was failure on its part in issuing these two drafts with the signature of only one officer instead of signatures of two officers. But, it is explained that the Drawee branch, viz. State Bank of Mysore, Hiriyur should have immediately obtained_telephonic confirmation of the Opposite Party, viz. State Bank of India, Kumbakonam and honoured the drafts. According to the Opposite Party, therefore, there was deficiency on the part of the State Bank of Mysore, Hiriyur branch. This contention has to be mentioned only to be rejected. The initial fault was on the part of the Opposite Party in issuing these two drafts without the signatures of two officers. It cannot wriggled out of its responsibility and try to shift the blame on the Drawee Bank. The default committed by the opposite party has led to a considerable discomfuture on the part of the Complainant''s partner and must have given him much mental pain and agony. We have little hesitation in holding that there was deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and it is liable to compensate the Complainant for the loss of reputation and the harassment suffered by its partner, the mental pain and agony to which he must have been suffered. We estimate the same at Rs. 10,000/-.

IN the result, the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Complaint allowed.