JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Sh. Ramkrishan Chaudhary, the complainant, received a cheque dated 27.11.2008, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, OPs 1 & 2, from Madan Gopal, OP4. The complainant deposited the said cheque for clearance with SBBJ, OP3. However, the ICICI Bank returned the cheque by a ‘return memo’, with the endorsement “cheque destroyed”. It is alleged that ICICI Bank could not have destroyed the cheque but could have returned the cheque in case it was not cleared. The destruction of cheque had caused loss of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. This action had caused gross deficiency in service to the complainant. 2. A complaint was filed with the District Forum. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint. It directed that the complainant can get the balance amount from the OP4. It granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and legal costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/- 3. Aggrieved by that order, First Appeal was filed before the State Commission, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the OPs 1 & 2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, as compensation against mental agony due to destruction of cheque by them. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The defence set up by the OPs 1 & 2 before the State Commission is that the account of Sh.Madan Gopal, OP4 was closed and it was not operative. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the ICICI Bank was well in its power to destroy the cheque because the account of Madan Gopal, OP4, was closed. He argued that at best, it can be a case of wee bit negligence, but the order passed by the State Commission is not legally tenable because the ICICI Bank is not liable to pay the entire amount. The petitioner should get the same from OP4. 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the Respondent No.1/complainant No.1, Sh.Tyagi, vehemently argued that the case against the petitioner has already become barred by time. He will have to pay court fee and the civil case may linger on, for a sufficient time. He argued that, consequently, the Bank is liable to pay the entire amount, in order to save the complainant from harassment and mental agony. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find that the order passed by the State Commission is not legally tenable. Although, there is no evidence that the account of Sh. Madan Gopal was closed, yet, even if it is assumed that it was closed, the Bank had no business to destroy the cheque. It was the bounden duty of the Bank to return the cheque to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, OP3, with the remarks that account of Madan Gopal had been closed and he had no amount in his account. It is painful and galling that the Bank is guilty of negligence, inaction and passivity. This is negligence and with a vengeance. 8. It is also not understood, why, the State Commission could not place reliance on the judgments produced before it, namely, Corporation Bank Vs. NCS Films, 2007 NCJ 619 and Canara Bank Vs. Muraleedharan Nair Avasthi Enterprises, II (2008) CPJ 01, where cheques were lost by the Bank. 9. Although, there is big difference between the words “lost” and “destroyed”, because in the later option, mens rea is involved, yet, the ratio of authorities should have been followed. The counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards Vijaya Bank Vs. M/s. Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., RP No. 4201 of 2007, decided by a Bench of this Commission, headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, wherein it was held, as under :- “Regarding the compensation amount to be given for deficiency in service, we are unable to agree that the compensation amount should be the same as that mentioned in the cheque, i.e., Rs.1,80,000/- There are a number of judgments of this Commission including in Canara Bank Vs. Sudhir Ahuja, I (2007) CPJ 1 (NC), wherein this Commission has held that on grounds of deficiency in service, the bank can be ordered to pay the compensation and not the entire amount of the cheque. Following this precedent and since there was a clear deficiency in service on the part of Petitioner No.2, we are of the view that Rs.30,000/- is adequate and equitable compensation and, therefore, direct Petitioner No.2 to pay Respondent No.1, this amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which this amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum. RP No.49/2008 filed by the Bank of Baroda is disposed of accordingly”. 10. Accordingly, we restore the order passed by the District Forum with certain modifications and set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2/OPs 1 & 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-, jointly, to the complainant, Ram Kishan Choudhary, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, this amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a., till realisation. The complaint against the OPs 3 & 4 stands dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to recover the amount from OP4, as per law. 11. Since the petitioner is terribly remiss in discharge of its duties and it touches the border line of criminality, therefore, we impose further costs of Rs.20,000/- which be paid by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi. The said demand draft shall be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under Section 12 (3) read with Rule 10 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, of the Central Excise Act, 1944, within two months from the date of receipt of the order. 12. To make things easy, the Petitioner shall hand-over the said demand draft to the Registrar of this Commission, who will in turn transmit the same to the Ministry concerned, and shall submit the report thereof to the Commission, after expiry of two months. Revision Petition stands disposed of. |
