M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 1639 /2010.
DECIDED ON : 11 .8.2015.
- Branch Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Branch Dudhichua,
District Singrouli (M.P.).
- Regional Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Regional Office, Sirmour Chouraha,
District Rewa (M.P.).
- Chief Manager,
Central Office,
Union Bank of India,
239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai.
….APPELLANTS.
VERSUS
Chandramani Singh,
s/o Shri Munnalal Singh,
r/o Gram Hinouti, Post Manikwar,
Mangawan, District Rewa,
Present address : Behind P. K. School,
Gali No.2, House No.16/737, Rewa,
District Rewa (M.P.).
….RESPONDENT.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI VIKAS RAI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.
SHRI SUSHIL GOSWAMI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.
O R D E R
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Rakesh Saksena, J. :
Appellants / Bank have filed this appeal against the order dated 20.5.2010 passed by District Forum, Rewa in complaint case No.368/2009 whereby the complaint filed against them by the respondent / complainant has been allowed and they have been ordered to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to him with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and Rs.1000/- cost of litigation.
2. The case of the complainant in short, is that on 30.8.2008 he deposited a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, in the appellant / Bank for collection. The amount of the said cheque was not collected and deposited in the account of respondent. Since the Bank even did not return the said cheque, the complainant sent a legal notice to Bank. The Bank replied that the said cheque was sent by its Branch to Union Bank, Behrampur by registered post on 11.9.2008, but it got lost in transit and did not reach the destination. A complaint in this regard was made to Post Office who informed that the inquiry was being made in the matter. Since the cheque could not be traced-out, it was advised by the Bank that complainant should obtain duplicate cheque from the drawer which could be processed for collection. Since the complainant felt dissatisfied with the reply he approached the District Forum for recovery of the amount of cheque and compensation from the Bank alleging deficiency on its part. The factual aspect of the incident was not disputed, therefore learned Forum held the Bank deficient in service because it sent the cheque for collection by simple registered post without any insurance cover. The Forum allowed the complaint and ordered Bank to pay compensation and the cost as aforesaid.
3. Shri Vikas Rai, learned counsel for the appellants / Bank submitted that it was common practice of the Bank to send the cheque for collection by registered post. No rule required Bank to send the cheques by post under insurance cover. Since the Bank followed its usual practice merely because the cheque was lost in transit, no deficiency in service can be attributed to Bank. Learned counsel submitted that the Bank informed the complainant about the cheque getting lost and advised him to obtain a duplicate cheque from the drawer, but the complainant failed to obtain a duplicate cheque. Since the cheque was not misused or encashed by anybody, the complainant was not entitled to receive any compensation from the Bank.
4. Learned counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. N.S. Sabastian, III (2009) CPJ 3 (SC) submitted that under the similar circumstances the Apex Court held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, therefore the order passed by the State Commission holding the Bank liable to pay interest on the cheque amount was set-aside and the complaint was dismissed. With due regard, in our opinion, the ratio of the Federal Bank’s case (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case before us. In the Federal Bank’s case when the cheque was lost in transit, the State Commission though declined the prayer of complainant to award the amount of cheque, but directed the Bank to pay interest on the cheque amount from the date of its issue till the date of payment. The appeal preferred by the Bank was dismissed by the National Commission. However, the Apex Court keeping in view the fact that since there was no sufficient amount in the bank account of drawer, it was impossible for the complainant to get the amount credited in his account. Even if the cheque had
not been lost in transit the same would have been dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Even though the Bank advised the complainant to obtain a duplicate cheque from the drawer, the complainant did not take any steps for obtaining the same probably for the reason that he was aware of the above fact. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, the Apex Court set-aside the order passed by the State Commission directing the Bank to pay interest on the cheque amount to the complainant. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the drawer had no funds to honour the cheque in his account.
5. It is true that as per advice of the Bank, the complainant failed to obtain a duplicate cheque from the drawer, but the fact remains that the cheque entrusted by him was lost at the hands of the Bank. Though the cheque got lost in transit, but the complainant suffered discomfort and harassment at the hands of the Bank. The complainant or his counsel could not place before us any rule or circular of the Bank to show that it was incumbent on the Bank to send the valuable cheques through insured post. Therefore, we are unable to approve the observations made by the Forum that the Bank was negligent and deficient in service merely because the cheque was not sent for collection under insurance, however at the same time we feel that the Bank was deficient in service to some extent.
6. In A.P. Bopanna vs. Kodagu District Cooperative Central Bank, 2009 CTJ 297 (CP)(NCDRC) the National Commission in the similar circumstances, where the cheque was lost in transit and was not traced, held :
“9. Although, we are of the opinion that respondent could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount but the respondent was certainly deficient in service to some extent. It cannot escape its liability for payment of reasonable compensation to the petitioner, which we assess at Rs.5,000/-. To the same effect, is a view taken by this Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal & anr. reported in IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC).”
7. For the aforesaid reasons we affirm the order passed by the District Forum. However, we deem it appropriate to reduce the amount of compensation awarded by the Forum from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.
8. Subject to aforesaid modification in the order passed by the District Forum, the appeal stands disposed of.
(Justice Rakesh Saksena) (Smt. Neerja Singh)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
