Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Honble Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President &
Mr. Desh Bandhu, Member
INDIA CINE AGENCIES—Complainant
versus
UCO BANK & ANR.—Opposite Parties
Case No. C-129 of 1994—Decided on 30.7.1997
A bank is liable for deficiency in service if it fails to credit account payee cheques into the customer's account due to negligence, and the customer is a 'Consumer' availing services of the bank for consideration under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
NEGLIGENCE - BANKING - SECTION 2(1)(d) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - BANK'S LIABILITY TO CREDIT ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES - INTERPRETATION OF 'CONSUMER' AND 'CONSIDERATION' - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, India Cine Agencies, had a Current Account with the Chandni Chowk Branch of United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank). The bank failed to credit a sum of Rs.9,80,000/- in the complainant's account in respect of 19 cheques which were deposited with the bank for collection. The complainant filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking restoration of the amount along with interest and compensation for mental pain and agony.
Finding of the Court:
The NCDRC held that the bank was liable to reimburse the complainant for the amount not credited into the account due to its negligence. The court rejected the bank's contention that the case involved fraud by the complainant's employee and that the bank could not be held responsible until the investigation brought the true facts to light. The court also held that the complainant was a 'Consumer' availing services of the bank for consideration, as the bank utilized the amount deposited in the current account.
Issues: 1. Whether the bank was liable for the deficiency in service in failing to credit the account payee cheques into the complainant's account. 2. Whether the complainant was a 'Consumer' availing services of the bank for consideration. 3. Whether the complainant was guilty of contributory negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The bank had a clear duty to see that the amount collected from the drawee bank was duly credited to the account of the complainant. The lack of supervision resulted in the fraud and the bank was liable to reimburse the amount to the complainant. 2. The complainant was a 'Consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the bank utilized the amount deposited in the current account, which constituted consideration for the services provided. 3. The complainant was not guilty of contributory negligence as the pay-in-slips contained the correct particulars of the cheques and the complainant's account.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed, and the bank was directed to pay Rs. 9,80,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 10% per annum from the date of receipt of payment under individual cheques until the date of payment to the complainant. The bank was also directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- on account of costs.
Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President— Brief facts of the case are that M/s. India Cine Agencies, complainant for short, had a Current Account with the Chandni Chowk Branch of United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank), arrayed as opposite party 2. According to the complainant they had been asking for a Statement of Account, but the same was not furnished by the said bank. It was only in July, 1993 that the said Statement of Account was furnished. A scrutiny of the same revealed that a sum of Rs.9,80,000/- was not credited in the complainant's account in respect of 19 cheques which were deposited with the bank for collection and the amount thereof was duly released by the said Bank. The complainant obtained certificates from the banks concerned regarding payment having been made to the Chandni Chowk Branch of the UCO Bank for being credited to the account of the complainant. On the asking of the opposite party the complainant also furnished photostat copies of the counterfoils of the pay-in-slips relating to those 19 cheques with the forwarding letter dated 2.9.1993. The Bank, however, failed to give the credit. Accordingly Legal Notice dated 10.6.1994 was served. The Chief Manager Chandni Chowk Branch, vide his letter-dated 13.3.1994 intimated to the complainant that it was not possible for the bank to restore the said sum of Rs. 9,80,000/- as the matter was being investigated by the CBI. The present complaint was filed on 27.5.1994 for restoration of Rs.9,80,000/- together with interest and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental pain and agony besides costs of the proceedings.
2. In the written version opposite parties stated that the case related to a fraud committed by one or more persons regarding which a First Information Report had already been lodged with the CBI and the matter was under investigation. It was further stated that the facts of the case would require voluminous evidence both oral and documentary including the role played by one V.K. Sharma, employee of the complainant who used to operate the account of the complainant on their behalf. A preliminary probe had revealed that the cheques in question had gone into the personal or related accounts of the said V.K. Sharma. It was stated that the complainant could not take benefit of the fraud committed by their own employee. It was denied that the Statement of Account was not furnished to the complainant. In fact, the practice was that whenever a page of the Ledger was completed a carbon copy of the same was furnished to the Account holder and this practice was followed in the present case as well. The all-important averment that the bank had received payment from the drawee banks and that all the cheques were account payee cheques was not denied.
3. In the replication filed by the complainant, it was stated that for civil liability the pendency of the investigation in the criminal case was not relevant. It was further stated that assuming for the sake of argument that a forgery had been committed, the bank was liable to reimburse the complainant of the amount which the bank failed to credit into complainant's account owing to its negligence. It was further stated that though V.K. Sharma was their employee, but he was never authorised to operate the account. The limited duty of V.K. Sharma was to deposit the cheque on behalf of the complainant or withdraw the amount as distinguished from operating the account on behalf of the complainant. It was further stated that there was no reason to await the final outcome of the investigation or criminal case, which might follow.
4. The complainant produced affidavit of P.J. Marwah Attorney, who was stated to be acquainted with the facts of the case. The opposite party produced affidavit of Mr. M.B. Jain Chief Manager, Chandni Chowk Branch of UCO Bank by way of evidence. The complainant also placed on record a photostat copy of the pay-inslips whereby the 19 cheques in question had been deposited as well as the certi
