These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Punjab Gramin Bank against the order dated 29.04.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal Nos.1107/2012 & 1140/2012.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 & 2 are the original complainants who filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur, (in short ‘the District Forum’) mentioning that complainant no.1 had a savings bank account in Punjab Gramin bank Ambala Jattan Hoshiarpur bearing account No.85620400085599. The complainant No.2 is the daughter of complainant No.1 and both the complainants were allotted residential plots. For the purpose of payment of allotment money i.e. Rs.3,27,500/- each, which was to be deposited before 21-01-2010, complainant no.1 applied to the appellant on 08-01-2010 for issuance of two demand drafts for Rs.3,27,500/- each from her above stated saving account in the name of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Greater Noida (for short YEIDA) payable at Delhi/Noida.  The appellant/opposite party No.1 debited the said saving account of complainant No.1 but instead of issuance of Demand Draft of Rs.3,27,500/- each, the opposite party No.1 issued two banker cheques bearing No.SWE 799349 and SWE 799350 amounting to Rs.3,27,500/- each from their current account.  The concerned Branch Manager of opposite party no.1 never disclosed to the complainants that the instruments which they had issued were not the Demand Drafts but the cheques from their current account. The complainants presuming the said cheques issued by the opposite party No.1 as demand drafts deposited the same with YEIDA through their authorized Banker Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC).  The OBC sent these cheques for clearance, which were returned by the respondent No.3/opposite party No.2.  However, none of the opposite parties intimated the complainants about the non clearance of above stated cheques. The fact of non clearance of cheques stated above came to the knowledge of the complainants only in the first week of August 2010 and thereafter they approached the opposite party no.1 and sought clarification regarding non clearance of cheques, when the requisite amount had been debited from the saving account of the complainant No.1 on 08-01-2010 itself. Thereafter, OP No.1 prepared two demand drafts bearing Nos.426627 and 426628 dated 6.8.2010 for Rs.3,27,500/- each in favour of YEIDA and forwarded the same to Manager (Property) YEIDA on 06-08-2010 and also requested them to accept the demand drafts. 

3.      It is further the case of the complainants that thereafter Manager (Property) YEIDA did not accept the demand drafts and returned the same to the opposite party No.1 with the remarks that “the plots of the party have already been cancelled, therefore, the demand drafts dated 06-08-2010 are returned” and YEIDA intimated the opposite party no.1 on 17-08-2010 that those demand drafts should be returned to the complainants.  Accordingly, opposite party no.1 returned the same to the complainants. Even then the complainants at their own sent the demand drafts of Rs.29000/- each dated 14-08-2010 as interest for delayed payment calculated by them, but the YEIDA refused to accept the same.  Due to the gross negligence of the opposite party no.1 and 2, the complainants were constrained to correspond with YEIDA vide letters dated 14-08-2010, 16-08-2010, 01-09-2010, 11-10-2010 & 12-11-2010 but YEIDA instead of accepting the demand drafts dated 06-08-2010 returned the same to the complainants with the remarks that the authority had cancelled the allotment of plots as allotment money of Rs.3,27,500/- each was not deposited within stipulated period which was 21-01-2010.  The complainants had to get the services of various lawyers of Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh for seeking legal advice and for preparation of said representations.  Since the YEIDA did not accept the payment, the complainants filed the Civil Writ Petitions bearing No.2896 of 2011 (Shivani Sharma Vs. YEIDA & others) and Civil writ petition bearing No.2897 of 2011 (Veena Kumari Vs. YEIDA & others) in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.  Ultimately the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court passed the order dated 19-01-2011, whereby YEIDA was directed to accept the payment of the complainants in respect of plots.  The payment was accepted by YEIDA on 12-05-2011 and the complainants were required to pay allotment amount of Rs.3,27,500/- for each plot along with interest @14% p.a. on the delayed payment as per schedule of YEIDA and the complainants ultimately paid Rs.1,13,600/- as interest as delayed payment of Rs.6,55,000/- and further interest of Rs.4500/- each through Demand Drafts No.046680 and 046681 of PNB Mandi Area Hoshiarpur.

4.      Aggrieved, the complainants filed a consumer complaint bearing No.09/2012 before the District Forum alleging the above facts and prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to pay following amounts along with interest:-

5.      The complaint was resisted by opposite parties by filing the written statements.  It was replied that the saving bank account did not belong to complainant no.2 and she was not the consumer of the opposite parties and had no right whatsoever to file this complaint.  Punjab Gramin Bank is the sponsored bank of Punjab National Bank, however it has an independent identity.  The complainant No.1 approached OP No.1 for preparing two demand drafts for Rs.3,27,500/- each in the name of YEIDA from her saving bank account.  It was made clear to her that opposite party No.1 can only issue banker’s cheques.  The complainant No.1 accepted the same and got two banker cheques issued on 08-01-2010 from opposite party no.1.  However, the purpose for getting bankers cheques was not disclosed at the time of receiving the same by complainant No.1. The opposite parties came to know later on that the said banker cheques were required by complainant No.1 for payment of allotment price to YEIDA.  The bankers cheques of Rs.3,27,500/- each were issued, which were drawn on Punjab National Bank Bhunga. A current account is being maintained by opposite party No.1 with opposite party no.2 and a cheque book had been issued by opposite party No.2 for issuing banker cheques.  It has been admitted by the complainant No.1 in her lengthy correspondence that the banker cheques and demand drafts stand on the same footing.  The complainant No.1 accepted the said banker cheques and deposited the same for collection to Oriental Bank of Commerce NOIDA.

6.      It was further replied that as per terms and conditions of allotment, only the demand drafts were acceptable.  The Oriental Bank of Commerce NOIDA accepted the banker cheques considering them to be at par with demand drafts and they processed the same for collection.  It may be clarified that it was not an ordinary cheque but it was a banker cheque. The said banker cheques were received for clearance through clearing house at Hoshiarpur on 22-03-2010 in the morning.  At that very moment, there was lesser amount in the current account maintained by OP No.1.  The opposite party No.1 received a massage from PNB Bhunga to transfer more money in their current account so as to enable the clearance of banker cheques.  The opposite party No.1 immediately informed Opp. Party No.3 for transferring funds in the current account maintained by OP No.1 with OP 2 and same were transferred on the same day.  However, in the meantime the said cheques were returned in the clearing house before noon.  It is further replied that the banker cheques were issued on 08-01-2010 and as per the case of the complainants, the same were returned on 22-03-2010.  It was the duty of the collecting bank viz. Oriental Bank of Commerce NOIDA or YEIDA to inform the complainant immediately regarding return of cheques.  However, as per complainants’ version, she came to know about non clearance of banker cheques in August 2010.  It was further clarified that there was no mistake on the part of opposite parties. It was not the duty of the opposite parties to inform complainant No.1 regarding the non clearance of cheques, rather, it was the duty of the collecting bank/beneficiary of the cheques to inform the consumer about non realization of the proceeds of the cheques so as to enable the consumer to arrange for the allotment money.  It was further replied that complainant No.1 approached opposite party No.1 on 06-08-2010 and made a request to again issue banker cheques in lieu of previous cheques on the ground that earlier cheques were not traceable.  On her request, the payment of banker cheques dated 08-01-2010 was stopped and out of the proceeds of the previous cheques, two demand drafts in favour of YEIDA were got issued from PNB Bhunga and delivered to the complainant No.1 to her entire satisfaction.

7.      It was further replied that YEIDA should have returned the demand drafts directly to their customer/allottee but in place of it they sent the demand drafts to OP No.1 and Opposite Party no.1 handed over the said demand drafts to complainant No.1 against receipt. The banker cheques were returned on 22-03-2010 and there is no justification as to why the said cheques were not got realized upto August 2010.  The delay, if any, in collection of proceeds of the cheques is not on account of any lapse on the part of opposite parties.  It was further replied that the letters dated 14-08-2010, 11-09-2010, 11-10-2010, 12-11-2010 written by the complainant to YEIDA and others clearly prove that the negligence, if any, is on the part of Oriental bank of Commerce NOIDA/collecting bank and YEIDA beneficiary of the cheques, who kept mum for months together when the said cheques were returned without realization.  It is also clear from the above said letter that second instalment of allotment was also accepted by YEIDA/Oriental Bank of Commerce on 06-07-2010 without disclosing the fact of non receipt of first instalment.  The complainant could easily get the allotment regularized from YEIDA itself and there was no necessity whatsoever for filing any writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.  When the YEIDA has accepted the second instalment of allotment and they failed to get the previous bankers cheques realized so, in these circumstances, the negligence and lapses were on the part of YEIDA itself.  It was YEIDA who kept mum from 22-03-2010 upto August 2010 when they failed to get the banker cheques realized and failed to intimate the same to complainant No.1.  So, the complainants are not entitled for any interest for this period from the opposite parties.   

8.      The District Forum however partly accepted the complaint and passed the following order on 09.07.2012:-

“In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainants Veena Kumari and Shivani Sharma is partly accepted with a direction to OP Nos.1 and 2 to pay Rs.3,87,000/- to the complainants as compensation and cost of litigation within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order failing which OP Nos.1,2 shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.” 

9.      Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the complainants as well as the opposite party Nos.1 & 3 i.e. the two branches of Punjab Gramin Bank and the opposite party No.2 Punjab National Bank preferred different appeals being No.1107/2012 and 1140/2012 and 1093 of 2012 before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by Veena Kumari and Shivani Sharma, complainants and increased the compensation from Rs.3,87,000/- as awarded by the District Forum to Rs.6,00,000/- and dismissed the appeal No.1140 of 2012 filed by the Punjab Gramin Bank.  The appeal No.1093 of 2012 filed by OP No.2 the Punjab National Bank was also allowed vide its order dated 29.04.2013.

10.    Hence the present revision petition by the petitioner/opposite party No.1.

11.    Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the stand taken by the petitioner in the written statement filed by them and stated that a banker cheque and a bank draft have same value and can be issued interchangeably.  Thus, there was no deficiency in issuing the bankers cheque to the components.  Unfortunately when these banker cheques were presented for clearance, the current account of the petitioner did not have the sufficient balance and the cheques were bounced.

12.    On account of this lapse on the part of the petitioner bank the complainants have suffered only the interest for the delayed payment and all other expenses claimed by the complainants in the complaint are not attributed to the deficiency on the part of the petitioner but on the deficiency on the part of the collecting bank i.e. the Oriental Bank of Commerce and the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA), who have not been made party in the present complaint case. Had they been made party in the present complaint case their deficiency could have also been decided by the consumer forum and then the total burden would not have come on the petitioner alone.

13.    It was further argued that for some reliefs the complainants have gone to the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad and for some reliefs they have come to the consumer forum.  The complaint was not maintainable as all the necessary parties were not made party in the present case.  When the YEIDA had already accepted second instalment, then they should have accepted the payment of first instalment as well along with interest. However they unnecessarily refused the payment and that is why the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad and got an order that the plots may be restored to the complainants.  The petitioner cannot be burdened on the basis of deficiency on the part of other organisations.  Similarly it was the duty of the collecting bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce to have returned uncleared cheques to the complainants so that they could have taken further steps for payment of the instalment.  Clearly this was a deficiency on the part of the Oriental Bank of Commerce but it has been considered against the petitioner and accordingly compensation has been ordered to be paid by the petitioner.

14.    On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainants stated that no information was given to them from any of the banks that the banker’s cheques have not been honoured and therefore, they remained under the impression that their payment has been made and duly accepted by YEIDA.  The original application was made by the complainant for issuing the bank draft and the deficiency on the part of the petitioner started when the petitioner issued the banker’s cheques in lieu of Bank draft.  This action of OP No.1 for not issuing the requisite demand drafts but issuing cheques is totally against the Banking guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Had the petitioner issued the bank drafts, no problem would have arisen in respect of their payment and the complainants would not have faced harassment and there may not have arisen any opportunity for them to go to the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad.  Therefore, whatever expenses have been incurred by the complainants in pursuing the matter with the YEIDA and in the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad are required to be compensated by the petitioner.  Both the fora below have given concurrent finding on the deficiency on the part of the petitioner and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited as the facts cannot be reassessed at the level of National Commission in revision petition.  It was requested that the revision petition does not have any merit and the same be dismissed.

15.    The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 Punjab National Bank stated that there was no deficiency on the part of the bank as the bank has only performed its duty.  As there was no sufficient balance in the current account of the petitioner bank cheques were not cleared.  The State Commission has rightly accepted the appeal of the Punjab National Bank opposite party No.2.

16.    I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.  Clearly both the fora below have given the concurrent finding that petitioner was deficient in providing the service and therefore is liable to compensate the complainants.  Thus, there is no doubt that the petitioner was deficient in providing the service as the banker cheques issued by the petitioner could not be honoured due to lack of sufficient funds. Clearly the bank drafts and the banker cheques are on equal footing and therefore the deficiency cannot be alleged on the part of the petitioner for issuing the banker’s cheques, however, the deficiency on the part of the petitioner is apparent for not maintaining sufficient funds in their current account and for not insuring that the bankers cheque are honoured when presented. The complainants have demanded a compensation of Rs.7,17,000/-, the details of which have already been given in the brief facts.  The question to be considered in the present revision petition is as to how much compensation is required to be paid by the petitioner when other parties are also involved who have been deficient in their services, but they have not been made a party in the present case.  Obviously, if the complainants have not made certain necessary parties as party in the complaint case, the advantage cannot be given to the complainants and the whole burden of compensation cannot be put on one party alone.  There is a clear deficiency on the part of the Oriental Bank of commerce when they did not return the banker’s cheque along with objection to the complainants.  Similarly YEIDA also did not return the cheques to the complainants rather the same were returned to the petitioner bank.  Moreover, inspite of having received the second instalment YEIDA did not allow the complainants to pay the first instalment even though the demand drafts were ready and were presented for the payment.  Clearly, the Oriental Bank of Commerce as well as the YEIDA have been deficient in their services and due to this the complainants had to go to the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad for redressal of their grievances.  The complainants have not made the Oriental Bank of Commerce or the YEIDA as a party in the present complaint at their risk and therefore no benefit can be given to the complainants for not impleading the necessary parties in the complaint case.  As the complaint has been filed only against the petitioner bank and the Punjab National Bank, one has to consider the deficiency on the part of these banks only and to decide the compensation accordingly.  As there are only limited number of parties in the present complaint case, the burden of cascading of deficiencies cannot be put on one of the parties impleaded in the matter. Section 14 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads as under:-

“14(1)(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party:

[provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit;]

17.    From the above it is clear that it is only the loss and injury suffered by the complainant that is to be compensated which has been caused by the negligence of the opposite party.  Clearly in the present case, only loss that has been suffered by the complainants due to deficiency of the petitioner is the payment of interest for delay in payment of the first instalment.  All other losses mentioned in the complaint are due to subsequent deficiencies attributable to other entities like Oriental Bank of Commerce and YEIDA.  Apart from this, it is an accepted principle that subsequent losses or consequential losses, are not to be considered for assessing the compensation particularly in the matters of non payment of cheques. Following judgments would clarify the point:-

1.       Citibank N.A.  Vs. Geekay Agropack Pvt. Ltd. & anr., (2008) 15 SCC 102.  It has been held that:

“9. The appeal filed by Geekay for not getting adequate compensation for the total amount of loss incurred by it is misconceived. For the recovery of total amount of loss, it is open for the appellant Geekay to file a civil suit before the appropriate Court which, we are informed has already been filed.

10. The National Commission could have awarded compensation only for the deficiency of service only. The said compensation has been awarded by the National Commission. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by Geekay also. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs insofar as proceedings before this Court are concerned.”

2.       State Bank of Patiala Vs. Rajender Lal and anr., IV (2003) CPJ 53 NC.  In this case, a check of Rs.75,000/- was not returned to the complainant after being dishonoured, and was lost, so State Commission awarded Rs.75,000/-. But National Commission reduced it to Rs.15,000/- only for deficiency in service.  

 3.   Bihar State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. V. State Bank of India & Anr. Original Petition No. 284 of 1997, decided on 5.12.2006 (NC).  It has been held that:-

        “On 6.5.1997 Complainant got information on telephone that the cheque which was issued by the Corporation for the premium was returned by Bettiah Branch of the State Bank of India on the ground that there was no balance at Lauriya account. The cheque was dishonoured despite sufficient funds due to the blunder of officer of the State Bank of India.

Dishonour of cheque:

          For the deficiency in service by the Opp. Party, State Bank of India, there is no dispute that the cheque was dishonoured despite there being sufficient funds in the account of the complainant.  In the written version filed by Opp. Party, it has been specifically stated that it was true that on  17.4.1997 there were sufficient funds in the account of the complainant to enable the Bank to honour the cheque and for the payment to be made.  However, the policy for which the cheque was issued was not covering the damage, in question, namely, explosion of the mollases tanks.

 In our view, for this negligent discharge in service, the complainant is entitled to get sufficient and reasonable damages including punitive damages as provided under Section 14(1)(d).

          But, the first question would be whether complainant is entitled to the reimbursement as claimed?  

       In our view, for the loss suffered by the complainant, there is no insurance coverage.  So dishonour of cheque by the Bank has not resulted in loss of reimbursement from the Insurance Company…………………………

Therefore it would be difficult for us to   arrive    at   the conclusion that complainant is entitled to   recover    the    damages suffered by it from the Bank which has negligently dishonoured the cheque despite sufficient funds in the account of the complainant.  

Considering this aspect, in our view, complainant is not entitled to be    reimbursed    by    the  State Bank of India for loss suffered by it.  

For the time being if we assume that the insurance policy covers the damage to the molasses and if the cheque for the premium is dishonoured, the Insurance Company would not reimburse the Complainant.  That means a wrongful dishonour of the cheque would result in loss to the Petitioner for more than Rs.25 lakhs.  Keeping this aspect in view, in our view, it would be just and reasonable to award punitive damages (as provided under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs so that the banks in general would keep in mind the statutory norms before dishonouring the cheque of verifying properly, particularly, cheque of reputed bodies, including the Government and semi-government bodies.

        Accordingly, we direct that the Opposite Party – State Bank of India shall pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as damages  including costs, to the Complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of this order..

   The complaint is disposed of as above.”

 18.   It is further seen that the State Commission has enhanced the compensation on the ground that the matter presently being contested in the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad will ultimately go to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the complainants would be required to make further expenses there.  Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 does not allow this kind of calculation for compensation.  Loss suffered has to be quantified properly and probable future losses are generally not to be considered. 

19.    From the above examination, it is seen that the District Forum has burdened the petitioner on the basis of the compensation which would have been granted for the deficiencies of the other entities like Oriental Bank of Commerce and YEIDA, for which there seems to be no justification as these entities have not been made party in the present complaint case.  The State Commission has enhanced the compensation without any basis.  In fact, the State Commission has not mentioned any justifiable reason for enhancing the compensation granted by the District Forum.

20.    From the above examination, it is clear that there has been deficiency on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner is liable to compensate the complainants.  Here I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that complainant No.2 is not a consumer of the petitioner bank and hence for her bankers cheque the petitioner has no responsibility.  As the banker cheques were issued from the savings bank account of the complainant No.1, the case can be seen as if complainant No.1 only requested for the bank drafts to be issued from her savings bank account.  Clearly, the petitioner is responsible for compensating the complainants so far as it relates to payment of interest towards delayed payment of the first instalment.  The District Forum has clearly found that there was no proof for the payment of Rs.1,20,000/- as interest, rather, the District Forum has found that two drafts of Rs.29,000/- each and two drafts of Rs.4,500/- each were submitted for payment of interest.  Thus, the total interest paid by the complainants is only Rs.67,000/-.  Clearly the petitioner cannot be burdened with the other claims of the complainants which have arisen due to deficiency on the part of other entities like Oriental Bank of Commerce and YEIDA except for the compensation for mental agony and harassment.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, apart from the amount of interest, I deem it appropriate to allow a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment.

21.    On the basis of the above discussion, the revision petition Nos.4422-4423 of 2013 are partly allowed and the petitioner bank is directed to pay Rs.1,67,000/- (one lakh sixty seven thousand only) to the complainant No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt/service of this order along with 9% per annum interest from the date of complaint as ordered by the State Commission.  Complainant No.1 is also entitled to a cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner.  The order of the State Commission stands modified accordingly.