IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No.159 of 2023 (Against the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in C.C.No.75 of

2022 by the DCDRC, Nagapattinam)

(Old C.C.No.48 of 2019 on the file of DCDRC, Chennai (South)

Friday, the 31^st day of January, 2025 M/s. Kuber Inn Metro, Rep. by its Managing Director K.Prabhu, Having Office at New No.6/1, Old No.33/1, Duraisamy Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Appellant/Complainant - Vs –

1. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, South Usman Road Branch, No.60/34, South Usman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

2. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Koranadu Branch, No.192/55C, No.2 Road, Koranadu, Mayiladuthurai–609 001. … Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : M/s.U.Sidharth Counsel for Respondents/Opps. : M/s. S.R.Sumathy This appeal came up for final hearing on 27.01.2025 and on hearing the arguments of the Appellant/ Complainant and Respondents/Opposite parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed by the complainant under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as against the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in C.C.No.75 of 2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagapattinam, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant herein.

2. The case of the Appellant/complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant is having current account with the first opposite party bearing A/c No.CA 6428366900 for a very long time. When the complainant verifying their account statement through online on 15.03.2017 they were shocked to notice that a cheque bearing No.322850 issued by the first opposite party to their account was encashed as “self” on 14.03.2017, for a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the second opposite party. The said cheque was stolen and not signed by the complainant. Immediately on 20.03.2017, the complainant made a complaint to the second opposite party. But the second opposite party had sent a reply notice dated 22.03.2017, as if the amount was paid in good faith and without any negligence and the signature in the cheque and the specimen signature of the accountholder matches, but did not disclose the mode of payment. Thereafter, on 13.07.2017 the complainant requested the second opposite party to furnish them with the attested copy of the said cheque with all the endorsements made on the said cheque. Since the complainant did not receive any response from the second opposite party, they wrote a letter to the first opposite party on 15.09.2017, for which the first opposite party by their letter dated 16.09.2017, informed the complainant that they have not received the said cheque, which is paid by the second opposite party’s branch. Further, on 13.10.2017 the complainant had made an application to both the opposite parties under Right to Information Act, seeking for an attested copy of the above referred cheque with all the endorsements made therein, for which the complainant received the information dated 06.11.2017 from the Central Public Information Officer and Deputy General Manager (IED) that the amount for the said cheque was paid to the bearer of the cheque Mr.Prithiviraj. V, enclosing Xerox copy of the cheque and KYC document of the said Prithiviraj. But, for the application made by them to the second opposite party under the RTI Act, no information was received. Since the information dated 06.11.2017, given by the Information Officer was not in full compliance of the information sought for, the complainant by their appeal dated 29.11.2017, appealed to the Appellate Authority, for which the Appellate Authority by their order dated 28.11.2017, furnished the information sought for by the complainant. After seeing the copy of the said cheque and endorsements made therein, the complainant was shocked to note that the cheque drawn on as “self”