ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No.2433 of 2007

UNION BANK OF INDIA, a banking institution and a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act V of 1970 having its head office at Mumbai, and a branch office amongst other places at Kabir Chaura, District Varanasi, through its branch Manager Sri Satyendra Prakash Sharma son of Late Dr. Om Prakash Sharma..                 …Appellant.

Versus

1- RAM MOHAN GUPTA, s/o Sri Rameshwar Prasad,

    Proprietor of the firm M/s The Laxmi Engineering

    Co. at 61/47, Mohalla Kashipura (Vibhuti Katra),

    District Varanasi.

2- STATE BANK OF INDIA, Branch Ghazipur,

    through its Manager.

3- CEM INDIA CO. LTD., at Suneja Tower,

    District Jail, Nanakpuri, New Delhi-58,

    through its Director.                                   .…Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.

Sri Rajesh Chaddha, Ld. counsel for the appellant.

Sri Akarsh Sood, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2.

None for the respondents no.1 & 3.

Date 18.6.2024

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member:-   This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Varanasi in complaint case no.238 of 1998, Ram Mohan Gupta vs. Union Bank of India & ors., whereby the ld. District Forum   directed the opposite party no.1 Union Bank of India to pay Rs.50,750.55 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

As per the case of the complainant, he deposited a cheque amounting to Rs.50,750.55 with the opposite party no.1 which was sent to the State Bank of India, Branch Ghazipur for clearance but the amount of cheque was not deposited in the account of the complainant and informed that the cheque has been misplaced. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 committed deficiency in service against the respondent.

The opposite party no.1 contended that cheque was sent for clearance but amount of cheque or the cheque was never returned to the bank. The complainant was informed accordingly but he never produced the duplicate cheque.  The opposite party no.1 never committed any deficiency in service against the complainant.

Upon appreciation of the evidence, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.50,750.55 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

Ld. counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant bank informed the respondent no.1 about the loss of cheque on 1.11.1994 and the complaint is filed in the year 1998 which is time barred. He further argued that the cheque has been lost in transit and clearance of the cheque could not be possible without any fault of the appellant.

As per the case, Federal Bank Ltd. vs. N.S. Sabastian, III(2009) CPJ 3 (SC), when the cheque is lost in transit and bank advised the complainant to get duplicate cheque from the drawer and the complainant fails to take step to obtain duplicate cheque then no liability can be imposed upon the bank and there is no deficiency in services committed by the bank. Therefore, judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum illegal. There was no occasion to direct the opposite party no.1 to deposit the amount in the account of the complainant. 

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Varanasi in complaint case no.238 of 1998 is set aside.

If, any amount, is deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be returned to the appellant, as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.        

          (Sudha Upadhyay)                     (Sushil Kumar)                             

                Member                              Presiding Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2