Delhi

StateCommission

CC/739/2018

NARENDER AHUJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL K. KHAWARE

16 Jul 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  16.07.2018

Date of Decision : 18.07.2018

COMPLAINT NO.739/2018

 

In the matter of:

 

Narender Ahuja,

S/o. Late Shri S.P. Ahuja,

R/o. H-198-A, Savitri Nagar,

New Delhi-110017.                                                          .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Axis Bank Ltd.,

At : C-75, Malviya Nagar,

Shivalik Road,

Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017.….....Opposite Party No.1

                   

 

2. The Axis Bank Ltd.,

Through its Chairman

Shri Sanjiv Misra,

Regd. Office,

Trishul, 3^rd Floor,

Opp. Samartheshwar Temple,

Near Law Garden,

Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006.….....Opposite Party No.2

 

3. The Axis Bank Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director & CEO,

Ms. Shikha Sharma,

Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound,

Pandurang Budhkar Marg,

Worli, Mumbai-400025.….....Opposite Party No.3

 

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                       Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

          The present complaint at the initial stage of summoning of the OP is based on the allegations that complainant deposited cheque no.070379 dated 12.01.2018 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for Rs.50 lakhs with his banker namely Axis Bank Ltd. At C-75, Malviya Nagar, Shivalik Road, Malviya Nagar Branch, New Delhi. The Same was presented on 10.04.2018 in his saving account no.916010080988718.

          The complainant is in various litigation with drawer of the cheque and details in that aspect is not within the scope of this complaint and  hence not being delved herein.

          The cheque was returned  vide remark dated 11.04.2018 that the cheque was stale / out dated. The cheque being high value was required to be acted upon by the OPs with alacrity  and expeditiously. The cheque could not be lodged as stale / out dated. The OP without any rhyme and reason failed to lodge the cheque within time. OP failed to adhere to and act in sync with RBI guidelines and have rendered itself liable to deficiency in service. The complainant delivered letter dated 13.04.2018 to OP-1 calling upon it to explain the reasons of return of cheque, though the same was presented well within stipulated period of three months. He received reply dated 17.04.2018 stating that cheque was received from the complainant and was sent for clearing on 11.04.2018. The cheque dated 12.01.2018 presented on 11.04.2018 for business dated 12.04.2018 became stale. Cheque deposited on 10.04.2018 could not have been deferred by OP till 11.04.2018. Complainant sent notice dated 02.05.2018 to which reply dated  15.05.2018 was received. Another reply dated 23.05.2018 was received. Hence this complaint for directions to the OP to pay Rs.50 lakhs being the cheque amount and Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation for glaring deficiency in service, Rs.1 lakh as litigation charges and interest @18% per annum from the date of filing  of this complaint till realization of the claim.

          We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The complainant has concealed the fact that on 10.04.2018 he deposited the cheque in late evening. The same is  revealed from reply dated 23.05.2018 from the counsel for OP. So day of 10.04.2018 was practically lost by the complainant. It is matter of common knowledge that cheques sent in clearing are taken up before 11.00 a.m. Bank can not be expected to send cheque one by one immediately  after it receive the cheques.

          The complainant has tried to mislead by repeatedly  mentioning in the complaint that validity of the cheque was 90 days. It was three months  and not 90 days. Cheque dated 12.01.2018 would become stale  on 11.04.2018 because the words used are “within the period of three months”. As per General Clauses Act  both days viz date of commencement as well as date of completion are to be counted if the phraseology is “within a specified period”. This is so as per 1998 cCr. L.J. 4330 Kerala. As compared to it only one day is to be counted if the phraseology is “from a particular date to particular day”. A cheque sent for clearing on 11.04.2018 would reach the drawee  bank on 12.04.2018 on which date the same would be stale as per decision in (2001) 3 J.T.114 & 2012 (4) Apex Decision Delhi 370..

          The counsel for the complainant stressed much on circular dated 01.07.2015 issued by RBI to all scheduled commercial banks copy of which is at page 58 to 59 of the complaint. Clause 14.2 deals with cheques/ instruments lost in transit/ in clearing process/ at paying bank branch. The same is not applicable in the case in hand. Clauses 14.1.4 deals with notifying the holders of such instruments of the change in practice by printing or stamping on the cheque leaves, drafts, pay orders and banker’s chqeues issued on or after  April 1, 2012 by issuing suitable instruction for presentment within a period of three months from the date of the instrument. This  clause is  meant to convey change in validity of instrement. Before 01.04.2012 it was six months which was changed to three months w.e.f. 01.04.2012. This was with a view to give wide publicity to the validity of the instrument by printing or putting a rubber stamp on the cheque leaves etc. This has nothing to do with the present case.

          It is not the case of complainant that bank had any enmity with the complainant or motive to make him suffer the loss. It did what ever it did in routine. Thus  no deficiency can be imputed to the OP.

The complaint has sought the amount of cheque and compensation both. When the OP has not received the amount of cheque, it can not be made liable to pay the amount of cheque. Right to recover amount is against the drawer of the cheque and not the collecting bank.

          The complaint is dismissed in limine.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

          File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)(O.P. GUPTA)MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

nk