SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 392

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Canara Bank – Appellant
Versus
Kavita Chowdhary – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2587 of 2025 with Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2025
Decided On : 15-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Adv. Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Adv. Ms. Arani Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Sahas Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Yashu Rustagi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Vinod Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Swantra Rai, Adv. Mr. Shubham Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Mr. Anmol Goyal, Adv. Mr. Aishwarya Sharma, Adv.

Bank's failure to present deposited cheques timely constituted deficiency in service, necessitating a recalibration of awarded compensation to ensure reasonableness and justice for the consumer.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(i) - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 23 - Deficiency in service - Appeal by bank against National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s judgment directing payment to complainant for cheque return without clearance - Complainant alleged negligence due to delays in presenting two cheques leading to substantial financial loss. (Paras 2, 12, 18, 71)

(B) Banking Law - Bank’s duty to present cheques timely - Appellant failed to re-present cheques after initial non-clearance due to strike, resulting in cheques becoming stale - Court emphasized bank’s responsibility to exercise due diligence to prevent loss to customers. (Paras 59, 62)

(C) Compensation - Commission awarded 10% of cheque value as compensation, modified by the court to 6% on appeal - Rationale for compensation reflects principles of reasonableness and justice in consumer protection disputes. (Paras 72, 74)

Facts of the case:
Appellant (Canara Bank) failed to clear two cheques totaling Rs. 1,06,10,768.00, deposited by the respondent (Kavita Chowdhary). Bank's negligence in presenting the cheques led to loss of legal recourse against the drawer, who was undergoing insolvency.

Findings of Court:
There was sufficient evidence of negligence on part of the bank; original compensation deemed excessive, modified to a lesser amount.

Issues: The main issues included the bank's failure to present the cheques timely, leading to loss and the appropriateness of the compensation awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that banks must act with due diligence regarding cheque transactions, with failure leading to deficiency in service; reasonable compensation is computed based on loss causation principles.

Result: Appeals allowed in part; compensation modified to 6%.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court held that there was deficiency in service by the bank in presenting two cheques within their validity period, leading to loss to the complainants (!) . - Compensation awarded by the Commission was modified to 6 percent of the total cheque amount to each complainant, with interest from filing, and no cost awarded; rest of the order not interfered with (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Legal framework discussed includes NI Act provisions on presentment, delay, and Section 138 conditions, as well as consumer protection definitions of service and deficiency; and application to banking services (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


Table of Content
1. overview of appeals and commission's decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. facts regarding complainant's cheque deposits. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. complaints sent after cheque issues. (Para 14 , 15)
4. appellant’s defense and responses. (Para 16 , 17)
5. arguments by both parties regarding liability. (Para 21 , 22)
6. court considerations and analysis of evidence. (Para 23 , 24)
7. statutory provisions relevant to the case. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. understanding key statutory obligations. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
9. consumer protection legal framework. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
10. deficiency and compensation principles. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
11. proceedings and legal liabilities. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
12. court's findings on negligence and service. (Para 53 , 54 , 55)
13. criteria for determining reasonable time. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
14. final determination on liability. (Para 60 , 61)
15. assessment of compensation. (Para 62 , 63 , 70 , 72)
16. final judgments and orders. (Para 73 , 74 , 75)

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

1. Facts and issue in both the civil appeals being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The two appeals have been preferred by the Canara Bank (‘appellant or bank’ hereinafter) under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/ Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 assailing the judgment and order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (briefly ‘the Commission’ hereinafter) allowing Consumer Complaint No. 123 of 2019 (Kavita Chowdhary vs. Canara Bank) and Consumer Complaint No. 124 of 2019 (Priya Chowdhary vs. Canara Bank).

3. It may be mentioned that vide the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2024, the Commission has allowed the aforesaid two complaints by directing the appellant bank to pay 10 percent of the total cheque amount alongwith interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date of filing of the complaints within two months, further imposing litigation cost of Rs. 50,000.00 in favour of each of the complainants. The Commission has clarified that any delay in making the payment by the appellant bank would result in enhanced interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum till the date of final realisation.

4. For the sake of easy reference, we may refer to the facts of the first appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2587/2025 (Canara Bank vs. Kavita Chowdhary). This appeal arises out of Consumer Complaint No. 123 of 2019 (Kavita Chowdhary vs. Canara Bank).

5. Respondent Kavita Chowdhary had filed Consumer Complaint No. 123 of 2019 before the Commission under Section 21 (a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and seeking compensation alongwith interest. Prayer made in the complaint was as under:

(i) To pass necessary order directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,06,10,768.00 (Rupees one crore six lakhs ten thousand seven hundred sixty eight) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum.

(ii) To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 25,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty five lakh) to the complainant towards interest/compensation/damages.

6. Complainant i.e. Kavita Chowdhary holds a savings bank account with the appellant at its Maharani Bagh (Ashram Chowk) Branch, New Delhi, the account number being 0349101015565. On 29.05.2018, she (respondent-complainant) had deposited two CTS cheques into this savings bank account, the details of which are as under:

(i) Cheque No. 46382 dated 03.03.2018 for Rs. 11,36,868.00.

(ii) Cheque No. 46381 dated 03.03.2018 for Rs. 94,73,900.00.

7. Both the aforesaid cheques were issued in favour of the respondent by Assotech Limited and drawn on Vijaya Bank, S.S.I. Branch, Noida.

8. Appellant credited the two cheque amounts into the aforesaid savings bank account of the respondent on 01.06.2018. The transacti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top