Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member

          This Complaint has been preferred by a Private Limited Company under Section 21(A)(I) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) against M/s Axis Bank, arrayed as the First Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”), where the Complainant Company was holding an account in is Gurgaon Branch as Account No. 910020018173149.  It is averred that on 07.09.,2011, the Complainant issued a letter to the Bank calling upon the Bank for stopping payment of the following cheques:-

“Sl. No.        Cheque No.

1.                173765 to 173800

2.                173684

3.                173690

4.                173817

5.                173831

6.                173832

7.                173833

8.                173682.”

2.       It is stated that the afore-noted letter was duly acknowledged by the Bank on 07.09.2011 itself.  The said cheques were given to Mr. Deepak Goyal, a representative of M/s Pyramid Tech Heights (P) Ltd., arrayed as Opposite Party No. 2 in the Complainant for business transactions between the Complainant Company and M/s Pyramid Tech Heights (P) Ltd.  It is averred that the last business transaction with the said Company was entered into on 26.06.2011, whereafter, the Complainant called for return of the above cheques, whereupon it was informed by Mr. Deepak Goyal that the said cheques had been lost/misplaced by him and, therefore, the instructions for ‘stop payment’ of all the afore-noted cheques were issued to the Bank.  It is pleaded that the outstanding dues and account of M/s Pyramid Tech Heights (P) Ltd. were duly settled and cleared by the Complainant on 24.03.2012, vide a cheque payment and the account between the Complainant and M/s Pyramid Tech Heights (P) Ltd. became ‘nil’ as on 24.03.2012. 

3.       After a year had passed since the instructions for ‘stop payment’ had been issued, the Complainant Company received some payments amounting to ₹250 Lakhs from sale of some immovable properties and Complainant deposited the same with the Bank on 11.09.2012.  On 12.09.2012, when the representative of the Complainant Company visited the Bank at 9.45 a.m., an amount of ₹113.25 lakhs was debited from the Complainant’s account towards encashment of three cheques, against which instructions of ‘stop payment’ had been issued way back on 07.09.2011.  The details of the cheques with the respective encashed amounts are detailed as hereunder:-

 “Sl. No.       Cheque No.           Amount

1.                173782                  40.00 Lakhs

2.                173783                  40.00 Lakhs

3.                173784                  33.25 Lakhs

                                                __________

                                                113.25 Lakhs”

          Immediately on becoming aware about the said transactions, the Complainant addressed an e-mail on 12.09.2012 at 1.21 p.m. informing the Bank that the said three cheques had been fraudulently encashed for a sum of ₹113.25 Lakhs, despite giving ‘stop payment’ instructions.  The Bank requested the Complainant to lodge a Complaint in writing along-with a copy of the said ‘stop payment’ letter and the same was sent to the Bank within a span of a few hours.  The Bank replied on 15.09.2012 and assured the Complainant of responding at the earliest.  The Complainant also sent a letter on 13.09.2012 which was served upon the Bank on 14.09.2012 with a reminder letter on 18.09.2012 and an e-mail dated 18.09.2012. 

4.       It is averred that the Complainant Company had received a response from the Bank on 24.09.2012 on false and frivolous grounds that the payment has been made to three different concerns with whom the Complainant was having business transactions.  After the Complainant had repeatedly corresponded with the Bank, the Bank responded on 15.10.2012 stating that an FIR was lodged and the Police was investigating the matter, but failed to credit the account of the Complainant with the sum of ₹113,25 Lakhs.  Out of the three concerns referred to by the Bank in their letter dated 24.09.2012, it is pleaded that the Complaint Company never had any dealings with M/s Florence Textiles Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. as well as M/s Shades and Shine Garments Pvt. Ltd.  So far as M/s Pyramid Tech Heights pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the transactions were closed way back on 24.03.2012.  Initiation of criminal proceedings cannot be any ground for not crediting the account with ₹113.25 Lakhs  It is averred that the Bank’s own policy as stated in its website stipulates that if a cheque is paid after acknowledgement of ‘stop payment’ instructions by the Bank, the transaction shall be reversed within two working days with interest.  Though the Complainant Company filed a Complaint and followed up with the concerned Police Station no action has been taken by the Police authorities so far.  These huge credit entries and immediately huge high value debits thereafter had occurred only in September, 2012 and despite such high value cheques being presented, within a span of one day, no consent of the account holder i.e. the Complainant was taken despite the same being a mandatory procedure adopted by the Bank while clearing high value transactions.  A Legal Notice was issued on 03.01.2012.  The Bank replied on 22.01.2013 stating that the Complainant Company is to blame and advised to register an FIR against the Companies, who malafidely submitted the lost cheques.  Vexed with the attitude of the Bank, the Complainant Company preferred this Complaint seeking the following directions:-

“i. Award ₹3,21,74,375/- (Rupees Three Crores Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five only) as against the Opposite Party Bank and in favour of the Complainant.

ii. Award interest at the rate of 18% on the awarded amount from the date of filing till the payment is made.

iii. Cost of the Complaint proceedings and the litigation cost be awarded in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party Bank.

iv. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5.       The Bank filed their Written Version admitting that the Company was having a current account bearing No. 910020018173149.  It is averred that though the Complainant Company had clear knowledge of the names and addresses of the drawee parties to whom the cheques had been delivered still gave notice of ‘stop payment’ to the Bank and even after the alleged misplaced cheques, the Complainant Company did not prefer to lodge an FIR.  The three disputed cheques were Account Payee cheques for specified amount and the beneficiaries of the said payments have confirmed that they were Business Associates of the Complainant Company and the cheques in question were issued to them against supply of goods.  As the said payments were against the goods received by the Complainant Company, the Complainant Company did not suffer any loss and should not be allowed to get double benefit from the disputed cheques in question, by getting the goods of the value of the cheque amounts and also by claiming the cheque amounts from the Bank.  It is also averred that the Complainant Company has not stated whether the drawee parties did not give any credit for the amount so received by them and further it has also not stated as to what action was taken against those drawee parties for misappropriation of the amounts so received by them. It is averred that M/s Florence Textiles & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., M/s Shades & Shine Garments Pvt. Ltd.  and M/s Pyramid Tech Heights Pvt. Ltd. have submitted and confirmed in their respective letters that the said cheques in question were given to them by the Complainant Company being their Business Associates and the same were issued against supply of goods and further submitted that the Complainant Company still own money to them and has also issued more cheques to them.  The Police which was investigating the matter on Complaint of the Bank, has submitted in its Report dated 31.07.2013 that during the course of enquiry, account statements of the Complainant was obtained from the Bank which revealed that the afore-noted three parties are having business transactions with the Complainant Company.  The Police have also opined that when an enquiry was conducted with Mr. Deepak Goyal, he had stated that he was engaged in trading of fabric with Complainant and in this regard Mr. Chander Mohan Gbana had issued the disputed cheques to him towards the business transaction proceeds and he has no dispute with Complainant or with Mr. Chander Mohan Gaba, owner regarding the said cheques and that he had never stated that the said cheques were misplaced by him. 

6.       It is also averred that since the Complainant is having a current account and was availing the services for commercial purpose and the Complainant being a Private Limited Company could not have availed the services exclusively for the purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment and, therefore, they are not ‘Consumers’.  The Complaint is not maintainable. 

7.       It is also pleaded that the Complainant on one hand stated that all the three cheques, in question, were handed over to one Sh. Deepak Goyal of M/s Pyramid Tech Heights (P) Ltd., who is one of the three beneficiaries and the same were misplaced by them, but in the letter dated 07.09.2011, the Complainant Company informed the Bank that the same were ‘misplaced by them’.  Thereafter on 17.12.2012 the Complainant Company has given a contradictory statement, addressed to SHO Civil Lines, Gurgaon that they had given blank cheques to one of their business clients.  It is averred that the Complainant Company has given inconsistent and contrary statements.  It is pleaded that the Managing Director Sh. Chander Prakash Gauba of the Complainant Company gave a vague letter dated 07.09.2011 and later on issued the said cheques to the said beneficiaries to dupe the Bank. The said dispute requires thorough cross-examination of the Managing Director which can be pursued only before a Civil or Criminal Court. 

8.       It is further averred that the letters, dated 18.09.2012 of M/s Florence Textiles & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., M/s Shades & Shine Garments Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Pyramid Tech Heights Pvt. Ltd., were written by them to Bank stating therein that the said cheques in question were issued to them against supply of goods by the Complainant Company to discharge its liability and still the Complainant Company owes a lot of money and some more cheques were issued by the Complainant Company to them.  The averments made by the Complainant Company and that of the beneficiaries are diametrically opposite to each other and requires a thorough investigation which can only be done by a Civil Court.  It is also averred that the present case pertains to criminal fraud and cannot be decided in summary proceedings before the Consumer Fora.  It is denied that the Bank has a policy whereby the amounts of cheques, honoured after the issuance of ‘stop payment’ instructions, would be credited within two days.  The said policy is for third parties which are traceable, but in the present case, the name and addresses of the beneficiaries are available.  It is stated that this is a false and frivolous Complaint and seeks dismissal of the same with costs.

9.       Learned Counsel for the Bank filed an Application bearing IA No. 547/2014 seeking impleadment of  M/s Pyramid Tech Heights Pvt. Ltd., M/s Florence Textiles & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shades & Shines Garments Pvt. Ltd.  He submitted that impleadment of these Companies is necessary for the adjudication of the case.  Learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that he has no objection to the same and thereafter vide order dated 07.10.2014 this Commission allowed impleadment of these parties as Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 respectively in the present Complaint and notices were issued to them returnable on 24.02.2015. 

10.     When the matter was taken up on 24.02.2015, despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 2 and 4.  Fresh notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 3 returnable for 26.11.2015.  Dasti service was also permitted on Opposite Party No. 3.  Thereafter as notice on Opposite Party No. 3 could not be served an Application seeking service of Opposite Party No. 3 through Publication was allowed for notice to be published in Hindustan Time for 26.11.2015.  On 26.11.2015, Opposite Party No. 2 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte.  An opportunity was given to Opposite Party No. 3, which was served by way of publication, to file its Written Statement and the matter was posted on 17.05.2016.  However, no representation was made on behalf of the third Opposite Party.       

11.     The Complainant Company filed its Affidavit by way of evidence and exhibited the following documents:- Copy of the Board Resolution dated 28.12.2012 as Ex. C-1/1;  copy of the Statement of Account as Ex. C-1/2; copy of the letter of ‘stop payment’ dated 07.09.2011 as Ex. C-1/3; copy of the e-mail dated 12.09.2012 as Ex. C-1/4; copy of the mail of the Bank dated 15.09.2012 as Ex. C-1/5; copy of the letter dated 13.09.2013 as Ex. C-1/6; copy of the letter dated 18.09.2012 as Ex. C-1/7; copy of the e-mail dated 18.09.2012 as Ex. C-1/8; copy of the letter dated 24.09.2012 as Ex. C-1/9;  copy of the Bank policy as Ex. C-1/10; copy of the Complaint dated 17.12.2012 as Ex. C-1/11; copy of the legal notice dated 03.01.2013 along with its postal receipts collectively as Ex. C-1/12 and copy of the reply dated 22.01.2013 of the notice as Ex. C-1/13. 

12.     The Bank also filed its Affidavit by way of evidence and exhibited the following documents:- copy of letter dated 01.10.2012 issued by M/s Pyramid Tech Heights Pvt. Ltd. as Ex. R-1/6; copy of letter dated 01.10.2012 issued by M/s Shades & Shine Garments Pvt. Ltd. as Ex. R-1/7 and copy of letter dated 01.10.2012 issued by Florence Textiles & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. as Ex. R-1/7.

13.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant while reiterating the facts submitted in the Complaint also contended that the balance in the account of the Complainant Company at the end of 11.09.2012 was ₹1,13,28,374/-; that the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4  were also having an account with the Bank colluded with the officials who informed them of the balance in the account of the Complainant and immediately on the next date i.e. 12.09.2012 an amount of ₹113.25 Lakhs was debited from the account of the Complainant through encashment of cheques, for which, ‘stop payment’ instructions were given on 07.09.2011; that the Bank filed IA No. 547 of 2014 seeking impleadment of Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 and has given up the prayers No. 2 & 3 of the said IA which was for production of statement of accounts of Complainant  vis-à-vis the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 and also for sending the cheques in question to CFSL; that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as the subject matter is with respect to the deficiency of service against the Bank and transactions conducted were for the purpose of earning livelihood; that the FIR sought to be lodged by the Bank was rejected by the police authorities on the ground that the matter was civil in nature; that the Bank thereafter filed a Criminal Complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini; that the Learned Court vide order dated 20.05.2015 dismissed the said Petition of the Bank; that it is not for the Bank to decide whether there was any payment due from the Complainant to any party or not; that this Commission in  Amitaben Dilip Kumar Shah & Ors. Vs. Varachha Co-op Bank Ltd., I (2013) CPJ 580 (NC) and State Bank of India Vs. WTD Sri Italy and Ors. III(2017) CPJ 169 (NC) in an identical case has held that the Bank was liable to pay the cheque amounts to the account holder; that the Bank in its own policy has stated that if the cheques are encashed after receiving instructions for ‘stop payment; the transaction would be reversed in two days and hence the Bank is liable to credit that amount of ₹113.25 Lakhs to the Complainant’s account together with interest, compensation and costs.

14.      Learned Counsel appearing for the Bank vehemently contended that the Complaint is not maintainable as it is a current account and it is an admitted fact that the Complainant Company was having business transactions with Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 and, therefore, it should be dismissed at the threshold. 

15.     It is pertinent to note that though the Complainant Company is having a current account, the question as to whether it is for commercial purpose or not has to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case.  I find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel of the Complainant Company that Private Limited Company is also a person as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 09.02.2009 in Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., III(2009) CPJ 5 (SC) I am of the view that the word ‘commercial purpose’ has to be interpreted taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute 1995 SCC (3) 583.

16.     Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act which defines the term ‘consumer’, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

                             “consumer’ means any person who:

          (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)     hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

          It would thus be seen that the emphasis is on the purpose for which the goods are obtained, though the use of which the goods are actually put would be helpful in deciding the purpose for which they were obtained.

17.     The term ‘commercial purpose’ has not been defined in the Consumer Protection Act and as held in Laxmi Engienering Works (Supra), in the absence of a statutory definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning.  ‘Commercial’ denotes ‘pertaining to commerce’, (Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means “connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile, having profit as the main aim” (Collin’s English Dictionary) and the word ‘commerce’ means “financial transactions, especially buying and selling of merchandise on a large scale.” (Concise Oxford Dictionary).”

18.     Going by the dictionary meaning, any goods obtained or services hired or availed by a Company can be said to have been obtained or hired or availed for a commercial purpose, only if the said goods or services are intrinsically connected with, or related to the business or commerce in which the Company is engaged.  The acquisition of the goods or the hiring or availing of services, in order to bring the transaction within the purview of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, should be aimed at generating profits for the Company or should otherwise be connected or interwoven with the business activities of the Company.  The purpose behind such acquisition should be promote, advance or augment the business activities of the Company, by the use of such goods or services.  As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works (Supra), it is not the value of the goods but the purpose for which the goods are brought or put to use, which is relevant to decide whether the goods were obtained for a commercial purpose or not. 

19.     It is pertinent to mention that the transactions in the instant case do not squarely  fall within the four factors of production which directly relate to profit-making of the Company to be construed as ‘commercial.’   The only point which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the Bank was deficient in its service by honouring the cheques for which admittedly ‘stop payment’ instructions were given.  Keeping in view all the afore-noted reasons, we are of the considered view that the Complainant Company in the instant case is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the Complaint is maintainable before this Commission. 

20.     Additionally, it is pertinent to mention that though I.A. No. 547/2014 was preferred by the Bank seeking impleadment of Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4, the Bank did not press its prayer  No. 2 and 3 seeking production of the statements of accounts of Complainant with respect to Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 and for sending the cheques to CFSL despite the fact that the order dated 07.10.2014 clearly notes that there was no opposition by the Counsel for the Complainant for sending the disputed cheques to CFSL for verification.  In the light of this, I am of the view that the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Bank that the matter is of complex and complicated nature and should be relegated to a Civil Court is completely unsustainable. At this juncture, I find it a fit case to place reliance on the Judgement of J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court inter-alia observed as under:-

“Further, under the Act the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge. They are competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts. Hence, it would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court.

It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards. (Emphasis supplied.)

21.     Keeping in view the principles laid down by the afore-noted judgement and also the fact that the Bank itself did not press for prayers No. 2 & 3 in IA No. 547/2014 and further taking into consideration that the point for adjudication herein is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not adhering to ‘stop payment’ instructions, I do not find it a fit case to relegate the matter to a Civil court.  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation having been enacted for adjudicating any ‘defect’ or ‘deficiency of service’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and in the instant case there are no substantial grounds to hold that Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate the mater or that it is a complex or a complicated issue. 

22.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Bank has also taken the objection that the case involves criminal fraud which requires detailed police investigation.  Admittedly, the Bank had filed a Complaint with the Police which has been rejected by the Police Authorities and the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini vide its Order dated 20.05.2015 dismissed the Petition of the Bank with the finding that the Bank has honoured cheques, in question despite intimation regarding stop payment of those cheques and no cognizable office was made of.  It is also observed that the Complainant had filed a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. also but no cognizance of the same was taken and an opportunity was given to the Complainant to bring on record the relevant material.  This establishes that no criminal offence was made out.  Be that as it may, the submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Bank that merely because any criminal case is pending, the Consumer Fora does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, is unsustainable.  It is significant to mention here that the Complainant also sent a Complaint dated 17.12.2012 to the Police Station and followed up the matter but no action had been taken till the date of the filing of the Complaint. At the cost of repetition, the main point to adjudicate herein is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the Bank for which the Complainant is entitled to compensation or not and has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings or otherwise initiated by the Bank. 

23.     The Learned Counsel appearing for the Bank vehemently contended that the Complainant Company did not suffer any loss and should not be allowed to get double benefit by getting the goods as well as the claim of the cheque amounts from the Bank.  Learned Counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the letters given by Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 exhibited as R-1/6 to 8 respectively wherein the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 have stated that some amounts have to be recovered from the Complainant Company towards supply of goods and that there are some business transactions between the Complainant Company and them. A brief perusal of these three exhibits shows that there all typed with the same wording and format and be that as it may, despite service of notice none appeared on their behalf to substantiate the veracity of these letters or otherwise.  It is the Complainant’s case that they had business transactions only with the Second Opposite Party and the accounts of the same were settled on 24.03.2012 and nothing was due payable to the said Opposite Party.  Additionally, on a direction by this Commission vide an Order dated 19.03.2014 the Complainant filed Affidavit on 21.05.2014, categorically stating that the Complainant Company never received any goods or benefit from the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 against the cheques in question and has not been reimbursed the amount of the said cheques.  It is pertinent to note that the Bank did not file any documentary evidence to rebut this contention of the Complainant Company.  At the cost of repetition, the Bank did not press prayers 2 and 3 of IA No. 547/2014 to substantiate their contention that the Complainant Company owed money to Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4.

24.     For better understanding of the case, the ‘stop payment’ letter dated 07.09.2011 exhibited as C-1/3 is reproduced as hereunder:-

“Dated: 07.09.2011

The Branch Manager,

Axis Bank Ltd.,

SCO-29,

Sector-14,

Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana).

Re: C/A Account No. 910020018173149

Sub: Stop Payment

Dear Sir,

You are requested to stop payment against the following cheque.  The relevant details of which are as under for your kind perusal.

 “Sl. No.       Cheque No.

1.                173765 to 173800

2.                173684

3.                173690

4.                173817

5.                173831

6.                173832

7.                173833

8.                173682.

The above cited cheque have been misplaced.  If these cheque are found than we will submit the same at your branch.  The necessary Bank charges may be debited from our Account.

Thanking You,

Yours Faithfully,

For V & S International (P) Ltd.

                                       Stamp of the Bank

Authorised Signatory      1.54 p.m.

                                      07.09.11.”

25.         From the afore-noted letter, it is evident that the Bank had even acknowledged the receipt of this letter on the same date i.e. 07.09.2011. The contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Bank that there are contradictory statements with respect to the misplacement of cheques is totally irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of the case.  The fact remains that there was ‘stop payment’ instructions against the afore-noted cheques and there was no substantial reasons given by the Bank in honouring the cheques, despite having admittedly received the ‘stop payment’ instructions.

26.     It is also not in dispute that an amount of ₹250 Lakhs has been deposited with the Bank on 11.09.2012 and the balance in the Complainant’s account by the evening of 11.09.2012 was ₹1,13,28,374/- and on the very next date i.e. 12.09.2012 by 9.45 a.m. ₹113.25 Lakhs was debited from the Complainant’s account.  It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 are having accounts with the Bank.  It is not understood as how the Bank after receiving ‘stop payment’ instructions on 07.09.2011, after a year had passed, and was dealing with a transaction of a large amount like ₹250 Lakhs which was deposited on 11.09.2012 in the Complainant Company’s account, immediately on the very next day honoured three cheques of substantial amounts totalling to ₹113.25 lakhs without verifying the cheque numbers and the details thereof.  The contention of the Counsel of the Bank that the Complainant Company suffered no loss and that they were getting double benefit is untenable especially in the light of the fact that it is not for the Bank to decide as to whether the payment is due from the Complainant to a third party or not but the Bank instead ought to have followed the instructions of ‘stop payment’.  Hence I find it a fit case to place reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 13 SCC 775 wherein for the deficiency of service against the Bank, the entire cheque amount was awarded.  Additionally, this Commission in State Bank of India Vs. WTD Sri Italy and Ors. (Supra) has held that, it was not understood as to how the Bank ignored the clear-cut instructions of ‘stop payment’ and encashed the cheques despite instructions from the Complainant.  Needless to add,  in the said case which has attained finality,  the Complainant was a Company and was operating a Current Account with the Bank. 

27.     For all the afore-noted reasons, I find that the Bank was deficient in service in honouring the cheques for which the Bank was specifically instructed and vide a letter dated 07.09.2011 to ‘Stop Payment’ and hence the Bank is directed to credit the Complainant’s account with an amount of ₹113.25 Lakhs together with Savings Bank interest existing as on 12.09.2012 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 9% p.a. for the same period.  Costs of ₹25,000/- is also being awarded.   In the result this Complaint is allowed with the afore-noted directions.