Petitioner/complainant had deposited a cheque for 2000 US$ in his Saving Bank Account No.4593 with the respondent bank for collection.  The cheque was drawn on Household Trust Company, 865, West Broadway, Vancouver, Canada.  Respondents failure to credit the proceeds of the cheque equal to the Indian currency, led to the filing of the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 1.1.1999, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank.  While dismissing the complaint, District Forum held that the respondent will continue to pursue the matter with the authorities in obtaining the information regarding the cheque deposited by the petitioner with the foreign bank and also that the petitioner shall help the respondent in collecting the information by taking up the matter with the drawer of the cheque and shall confirm whether the value of the cheque has been credited in his account or not.    

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal by observing as under :

“Perusal of the impugned order shows that the stand of the respondent before the District Forum was that relevant cheque was forwarded to the foreign department at its Delhi Branch at Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi and they had sent the same for collection to House Hold Trust Company, Cananda and thereafter the said office was closely following to get information but so far they have not received any information.  As is apparent from the aforesaid fact, the respondent was liable to credit the amount of the cheque in the account of the appellant only on receipt of the proceeds of the same from the foreign bank and not otherwise.

It appears that something wrong went during the submission of the cheque to the foreign bank on which it was drawn.  In such like circumstances, the District Forum was right in passing the impugned order.  However, we direct the respondent bank to consider the re-imbursement of the said chque as and when the appellant receives or when the appellant gets credit note of payment and certificate from the House Hold Trust Company for payment of the said cheque.  The allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank does not stick.”

Not satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

This Revision Petition came up for hearing on 28.4.2010.  We adjourned the case for today with a direction to the counsel for the respondent to seek advice from the drawee/foreign correspondent bank as to whether they had received the cheque in question and as to whether the same has been cleared or not.  Counsel for the respondent was directed to file the affidavit of the Manager of the Branch regarding the status of the cheque. 

Counsel for the respondent has filed the affidavit stating therein that in spite of several letters written to the drawee bank, the respondent has not received the payment of the said cheque till date.  Petitioner had deposited the cheque with the respondent to collect the same.  Respondent had sent the cheque to the drawee bank and the drawee bank did not clear the same and remit the amount to the respondent.  Whatever the bank could do to collect the cheque has already been done.  There is no deficiency on the part of the respondent.  Bank has taken all possible steps to collect the cheque.

We agree with the view taken by the fora below that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Dismissed.