SYNDICATE BANK vs KAMAL KISHORE SHARMA

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1348/2010 - Kamal Kishore Sharma & Anr. Vs. Syndicate Bank by which, while allowing appeal, order of District

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant No. 2/Respondent No. 2 had saving bank account with OP which was converted into joint account with Complainant No. That account bearing ID NO. 2471 and new no. 30412013450 (30412010003450) was It was further alleged that Complainant No. 1 had also another saving bank account with the OP which was later on converted into joint account with complainant no. 2. Complainant No. 1 during visit to India in the months of January and February 2009 issued 11 cheques out of which, one cheque was cancelled by the complainant himself and 8 cheques were cleared by OP, but two cheques dated 5.2.2009 bearing No. 345677 and 345678 worth Rs.2,500/ - and Rs.3,000/ -, respectively were dishonoured by Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that A/c. No. 2471 was an individual account of Complainant No. 1 and was never converted into joint account of Complainant No. 2. It was further submitted that Complainant No. 1 was only a nominee in the A/c having no authority to operate the said account, but OP in order to avoid inconvenience cheques issued by Complainant No. 1 pertaining to Complainant No. 2 ''s account which were presented at the counter or received through local clearing were honoured but two cheques of outstation branches were returned as signatures did Appeal filed by the complainants was allowed by learned State Commission vide was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - towards compensation to the complainants along with interest and further awarded Rs.5,000/ - as cost against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complainant No. 2 ''s account was individual account and outstation cheques issued by Complainant No. 1 were rightly dishonoured by OP and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint; even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint; hence, revision On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that OP was estopped from dishonouring two cheques as they had already cleared 8 cheques issued by Complainant No. 1 and further submitted that Complainant No. 2 ''s Account was joint account with Complainant No. 1 and learned State Commission rightly awarded

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that old saving bank account No.2471 (New A/c. No. 30412013450) was in the name of Complainant No. 2 and Complainant No. 1 was shown as nominee and Smt. Sajoja Goenka was also authorized signatory of this No documentary evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to the effect that Complainant No. 2 ''s Account No. 2471 was ever made joint account with complainant no. 1. Learned State Commission observed in paragraph 22 of the impugned order as under: ''''22.It is true that except oral assertion, the complainants have not adduced any documentary evidence before the District Forum to show that the individual account issued in the name of the Complainant No. 2 in the year 1988 was subsequently account of both the complainants. but, contrary to this observed in paragraph 20 that this account was subsequently converted into the joint account of both the complainants which is contrary to record.

As Account of Complainant No. 2 was an individual account and Smt. Saroja Goenka was also the authorized signatory of Complainant No. 2, Complainant No. 1 had no No doubt, Bank cleared 8 cheques pertaining to account of Complainant No. 2 issued by Complainant No. 1 which were local station cheques, OP was not estopped from dishonouring outstation cheques issued by Complainant No. 1 who had no authority to Merely because some local cheques were cleared to facilitate the complainants, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of OP for dishonouring outstation cheques which were not issued by the authorized person of Complainant No. 2 ''s saving bank

IN the light of above observation it becomes clear that as Complainant No. 1 had no authority to issue cheques pertaining to Complainant No. 2 ''s saving bank account, OP has not committed any deficiency in dishonouring some cheques issued by Complainant No. 2 and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and impugned order is liable to set aside.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 20.6.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1348/2010 - Kamal Kishore Sharma & Anr. Vs. Syndicate Bank is set aside and order of District forum dated 29.10.2010 passed in Complaint No.505/2010 dismissing complaint is affirmed with no order as to costs.