IMPORTANT POINT
Where a cheque sent for collection by bank was lost in transit bank could not be held liable for cheque amount isn absence of proof that cheque was misused causing loss to payee-consumer but bank would be liable to compensate for deficiency in service.

Ashok Bhan, President—State Bank of India, ADB, Karempudi (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’ for short) has filed the present revision petition assailing the Order dated 21.6.2004 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) where under and by which the State Commission has upheld the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) .The District Forum by its Order had directed the petitioner to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 20,000 alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of presentation of the cheque, i.e., 21.9.1996 till its payment. Rs. 200 were awarded as costs.

Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:

2. Respondent-claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’ for short) had a bank account with ADB, Karampudi Branch, Guntur District of the petitioner Bank. On 21.9.1996, the respondent deposited a cheque bearing No. 6500454 for Rs.20,000 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Miryalaguda with the petitioner Bank. Petitioner sent the cheque for collection to the State Bank of India, Miryalaguda on 23.9.1996 through courier agency, viz. the ANL Parcel Services. The envelope carrying the cheque was lost in transit between Karampudi and Miryalaguda. Petitioner, by its letter dated 10.1.1997 (copy of which was endorsed to the respondent), asked the courier agency to locate the cover containing the cheque. The courier agency, by its letter dated 13.1.1997, reported that the cover had been misplaced. Subsequently, the respondent was orally requested to obtain a duplicate cheque from the drawer of the cheque. Without making any effort to obtain the duplicate cheque from the concerned drawer, the respondent filed the complaint against the petitioner-Bank before the District Forum, Guntur praying for a direction to the petitioner to pay the cheque amount along with interest @ 24% from the date of deposit. Rs. 10,000 were claimed towards costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 20,000 alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of presentation of the cheque, i.e., 21.9.1996 till its payment. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned Order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. None has appeared for the respondent even on the last date of hearing. Order to be proceeded ex parte.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Bank could not be held liable to pay Rs. 20,000 being the entire cheque amount with interest in the absence of any proof to the effect that the cheque deposited with the petitioner Bank had been misused or encashed by someone else. That the respondent, in spite of being asked to get a duplicate cheque from the drawer of the cheque enable the petitioner to collect the payment, failed to do so which shows that there was no loss caused to the respondent. As per law, the respondent was entitled to compel the borrower to issue a duplicate cheque. That the petitioner was under obligation to pay the amount of cheque only after receiving the funds from the bank of the borrower. Since the same could not be done the petitioner could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount to the respondent alongwith interest. We find substance in these submissions.

5. Petitioner received a cheque from the respondent on 21.9.1996 and on 23.9.1996, the said cheque was handed over to the courier agency for being sent to the drawee Bank for collection. The same was dispatched but was unfortunately lost in transit. Respondent failed to get a duplicate cheque in spite of being asked to do so. Respondent has failed to show by leading any evidence that there was loss caused to him in as much as that the cheque has been misused or encashed. In the absence of any proof to that effect, the petitioner Bank could not be held