STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/15/578 null THEMANAGER HDFC BANK PRESENT ADDRESS - RAVIPURAM ,KOCHI ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus VENUGOPALA MENON PRESENT ADDRESS - TRAYEE WARRIAM ROAD OPPOSITE CHINMAYA VIDYAPEET KOCHI

682016 ,KERALA. .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 578/2015 JUDGEMENT DATED : 27.01.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.337/2014 on the files of DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

The Manager, HDFC Bank, Ravipuram, M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 015 (by Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Venugopla Menon, Tryee, Warriam Road, Opposite Chinmaya Vidyapeet, Kochi – 682 016

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.337/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant received an SMS on his cell phone on 10.01.2014 that an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) was withdrawn through cheque from the Kalpetta Branch of HDFC Bank. The complainant on 11.01.2014 received another SMS stating that an amount of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) was withdrawn through cheque from the Sulthan Bathery Branch of HDFC Bank. The complainant informed the matter to the bank authorities on 13.01.2014. When informed, the bank had issued stop payment of all the remaining cheques. While so, the culprit was caught red-handed when he tried to withdraw money from another branch in Kalpetta. The Police registered a crime in connection with the case and arrested the culprit. The bank had a duty to verify signature before honouring the cheque. Since the cheques were honoured, the complainant alleged that the culprit had association with some of the bank officials for encashing the cheques. Since the signature was not verified before encashing the cheques, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. The opposite party filed version admitting the withdrawal of money on

10.01.2014 and 11.01.2014 from the account of the complainant. However, the opposite party contended that the complainant did not make any effort to stop further payment when he received SMS with regard to the withdrawal of money on 10.01.2014. The complainant had informed the bank only on 13.01.2014 about the unauthorised withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant.

4. The opposite party had taken the contention that the person who collected the cheque from the bank at Kalpetta Sulthan Bathery Branch was Sri. Joemon, a colleague and friend of the complainant, who used to do money transactions in the account of the complainant. The bank verified the signatures. Then, it was found that the signatures on the cheques were exactly similar to those of the complainant. There was no collusion between the bank employees and the culprit who had withdrawn the amount unauthorizedly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

5. Before the District Commission, proof affidavit was filed by the complainant. Exhibits A1 to A10 were marked for the complainant. The proof affidavit was filed and Exhibits B1 to B6 were marked for the opposite party.

6. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to credit Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with interest to the account of the complainant. The opposite party was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and costs of