Complainant/petitioner deposited two cheques in the sum of Rs.1,94,258/- issued in its favour by M/s S. R. Facts and Oils, Sonepat with the respondent bank.  The cheques were lost by the bank in transit.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint by directing the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant

-2-

along with Rs.5,000/- as costs.  Prayer made by the petitioner to award the cheque amount was declined by the District Forum by observing thus:

          “………….But at the same time there cannot be any order to refund back the whole amount of cheques to the complainant as the complainant is not entitled to recover the amount from the bank which they have not given to them.  As a matter of fact, complainant is entitled to receive the amount from the company M/s S.R. Fats and Oils who is actually liable to pay the govt. money to the company. OP can be charged for deficiency in service though very grave and accordingly, compensation can also be of very heavy amount.  It is not understood why complainant in spite of court’s observation was reluctant to make M/s S.R. Fats and Oils a party, had the complainant made them a party Forum could bring something on record in favour of the complainant against those lost cheques. It appears both the parties have tried to throw the responsibility on others shoulders because the money involved was govt. money and not money belonging to individuals.  If the order is made in favour of one and against the another it is only govt. losing money in other words public money.  But, the actual person who is liable to pay the money is not made a party.”

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

-3-

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has filed this revision petition seeking a direction to respondent to pay the cheque amount.

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  It is an established principle of law that the bank cannot be made liable to pay the entire cheque amount.  This Commission in “CANARA BANK VS. SUDHIR AHUJA, I (2007) CPJ 1 (NC)” has held as under:

         “3. Relying on the decision in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal and Anr. IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC), the submission advanced by Mr. Pankaj Gupta for petitioner is that a bank on ground of deficiency in service can be burdened with some compensation but it cannot be made to pay the entire amount of cheque and the order of State Commission being erroneous deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the submission advanced by Mr. Sushant Mukund for respondent is that the defence of the bank was that the amount of the cheque in question had been received by the respondent but from the affidavit dated 12.1.2004 filed before the State Commission by the respondent it is established that the amount of cheque was not received by the respondent and the remedy for realization of the amount of cheque in question by the respondent has, now, become barred by limitation. Deposit of the cheque for collection of amount thereof on 25.1.2001 is admitted by the petitioner Bank. Since the amount of cheque was not credited in said account nor the cheque which

-4-

seem to have been misplaced in transit, was returned to the respondent, the petitioner bank was certainly deficient in service. It is not in dispute that the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 25.4.2001. Copy of written statement filed by the bank on record would show that it was verified on 20.9.2001. Written version, thus, must have been filed thereafter sometime in September, 2001 itself. Obviously, by the time the complaint and written version were filed the respondent had become aware of the loss of cheque. Remedy of the respondent to file suit based on original consideration of the cheque was within limitation period by then. For recovery of amount of a cheque, a complaint would bot lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ’Act’). Therefore, on ground of deficiency in service the bank can be ordered to pay the compensation and not the entire amount of the cheque. To the same effect is the ratio of the decision in Rajender Lal’s case (supra). Submission referred to above, advanced on behalf of respondent has no relevance on the issue on hand. Order of State Commission requiring the petitioner to pay the entire amount of the cheque in question cannot be legally sustained. In the facts and circumstance of case, we quantify the amount of compensation payable to the respondent at Rs.5,000./-.”

          Earlier the same view was taken by this Commission in “STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. RAJENDER LAL & ANR., IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC)”.  In that case, State Bank of Patiala had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 30.07.2009.  This decision was followed by this Bench in “Andhra

-5-

Bank vs. C. Ananta Reddy & Ord. revision petition 2261/2007 (decided on 11.07.2011).”

          Since the view taken by the fora below is in line with the view taken by this Commission in the aforesaid three judgments, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

          Respondent is directed to pay the awarded amount to the petitioner within eight weeks from today, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to get the order executed.