06-05-2015 - Heard Mr. Alok Dutta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.- Appellant (the Bank for short) on the prayer for condoning the delay of about 91 days in filing this appeal.

          He submitted that for the reasons mentioned in the limitation petition the said delay occurred.

2. On merits he submitted that it is true that the amount of cheque deposited by the complainant with the Bank was not credited in his account, but ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (the Drawer for short) was a necessary party and in it’s absence, no order could be passed against the Bank. He further submitted that though this objection of non joinder of the Drawer was not taken before District Forum, but it can be taken in this appeal.

3.It appears that according to the complainant, he deposited a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- dated 26.09.2011 issued in his favour by the Drawer in the Bank on 29.09.2011 but the same was not credited in his account, about which he approached the Bank on several occasions but no satisfactory explanation was given by the Bank, and due to such inaction on the part of the Bank, the validity of the cheque expired, and he suffered loss of the said amount along with loss of interest thereon.

4.In the written statement, the Bank said that it is ready to pay the cheque amount as per Banking terms and conditions. It further said that the Bank is regularly trying to obtain advice from the Drawer whether the said money was debited or not.

5.Thus there is no denial of the allegations made in the complaint. It was the duty of the Bank to ensure that the cheque amount is credited in the account of complainant but there is nothing to show what steps were taken by the Bank in this regard. It was never the case of the Bank that the Drawer was necessary party and now such argument is being raised in this appeal. Even if this argument is accepted that such plea can be taken in this appeal, we find the Drawer was/is not at all a necessary party. The Bank is trying to divert the issue, to cover up it’s deficiency in service. In the circumstances we are of the view that the learned District Forum has rightly directed the Bank to pay the cheque amount Rs. 20,000/- along withRs. 14,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- being the loss of interest @ 9% p.a.; Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost), within the given time failing which such amount was to carry interest also @ 10% p.a. from the date of the order, till the payment.

6.After hearing Mr. Dutta and going through the material placed before us, we find that even if the delay of 91 days in filing this appeal is ignored, no grounds are made out at all for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly this appeal dismissed. However no costs.

          Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

          Ranchi,    

          Dated: 06-05-2015