On call Learned Lawyer of both the sides appeared. On behalf of complainant written notes of argument has been filed. Heard all the parties. After hearing it appears that this case is moving around having very short story as even after having deposit the premium amounts issued through cheque no.597966 and 597967 for Rs.3826/- each should not be incashed to its loss. The cheques were relating to payment for the insurance policy in the name of Vidayarthi Sachinand and Vidayarthi Vivekanand. Out of fault committed the Complainant has suffered a lot. Therefore, submitted that this complaint case be allowed.

          Learned Counsel on behalf of SBI submitted at first that this case is barred by law of limitations as after lapse of more than 2 years this case has been filed and no reasonable explanation has been given by the complainant. The learned counsel on behalf of Tata AIG Life Insurance company ltd. submitted that company has not received the premium amount and company is not at all at fault in this case.

          Learned Counsel in reply to the submission as well as the facts pleaded by the SBI and the insurance it has been submitted that the certificate issued from Branch Manager as annexure 3 is said to have been issued on 15.09.2006. Annexure 4 would show that it is related in the month of 08.02.2017 which is a letter addressed to the TATA AIG Life Insurance company ltd letter dated 28.04.2008 has been filed which has been addressed to the Branch Manage TATA AIG Jeevan Bima company and the legal notice send by Sri Shailendra Kumar advocate which is annexure 5 is relating dated 17.12.2009. Then the question raised by the SBI relating to limitation has got no effect in this case. Because when the cause of action is in continuity and same is having with proof thereof. Further relied upon the decision reported in II (2008) CPJ 395 wherein it is observed that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(I)(g)- Banking and Financial Services- Cheque lost in transit- Deficiency in service on part of bank writ large – Entire cheque amount along with compensation and cost awarded- Order modified in appeal – Instead of awarding entire cheque amount adequate compensation to be awarded to customer – Order modified accordingly – Bank liable to pay Rs.10000 towards compensation and cost.” And also referred II (2008) CPJ 535 which reads as “Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)g, 14(1)(d)- Banking and Financial Services- Cheque lost in transit- Complaint allowed by Form- Complainant held entitled to full cheque amount- Hence appeal- Bank held negligent as not taken proper care- Banker in collecting cheque, required to exercise same care which reasonable businessman would bring to bear in handling valuable negotiable instrument- Bank rightly held negligent in delivering services – Bank liable to pay some compensation but not entire cheque amount- Order of Forum modified- Bank liable to pay compensation of Rs.25000 instead of Rs.50000 as directed by Forum.”

          After going through the judgments as referred and hearing the Learned Counsel on behalf of opposite party We find that issuance of cheque is an admitted fact and same is not denied by any of the party. Even the Branch Manager SBI has issued certificate on 15.09.2006 relating to lost in transit/dispatch and not collected till date buy us. The insurance company (O.P) also does not dispute relating to deposit of the premium through the cheque as discussed above which was for the TATA AIG Life Ins. Comp. ltd. As per the insurance policy opened in the name of Vidayarthi Sachinand and Vidayarthi Vivekanand. We differ with the view of the SBI manager that once he has admitted in certificate about the lost of the cheques but at the same time he has mentioned in the certificate that though cheque has lost in transit but not collected by us. The collection has not been accepted by the bank with the clean heart while the annexure 2 deposit slip is completely in favour of the complainant and in support of the statement of the complaint. So far as contention of limitation on behalf of SBI is concerned it is ignorable after going through the annexures which shows particularly the certificate issued by Branch Manager relating to date 15.09.2006. Annexure 4 is a letter to TATA AIG Life Ins. Comp. ltd. bears the date 08.02.2007 and a letter written by the Arun Kumar Singh to the Branch Manager TATA AIG Jeevan Bima which bears the date 28.04.2008 and legal notice is dated 17.12.2009 and this complaint has been brought on 03.02.2010. Therefore, after considering the facts as above it is apparent that cause of action has been in continuity. Hence, the plea that on account of note filing the present case within 2 years after being lost of the cheques, this case is not maintainable is not appearing to be plausible rather this case does not hit to the principal of the limitation.

          After the above we consider to allow the complaint and accordingly, complaint petition stands allowed and opposite party bank (SBI) is directed to pay the amount altogether Rs.7652/- relating to the cheques bearing no. 597966 and 597967 on account of its lost in the bank alongwith 5% interest accrued thereon form the date of filing of the case i.e.03.02.2010 and fresh cheques be issued in this regard and also further directed to pay Rs.7500/- as a litigation cost but without interest. However it is specified that whatever the amount has been found payable to the complainant they are deemed to be compensation for the suffering of the complainant. It is also stated that the amount as above shall be paid by the bank to the complainant within 2 months of this order. In case of non-payment complainant shall be entitled to recover the amount in due process of law.