IMPORTANT POINT
Where the bounced cheque was sent to account holder by courier which was lost during transit, though bank was deficient in service it could not be held liable to reimburse the value of cheque lost in transit and consumer Forum could award compensation.

P. D. Shenoy, Member—Dissatisfied by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in First Appeal No.135 of 2007, Shri Azhar Mohammad and others have filed this revision petition before us. By the impugned order dated 27th June 2008, the State Commission had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order of the District Forum.

2. The factual matrix of this case is as follows:

Two cheques issued in favour of Mr. Aazhar Mohammad, were submitted by him to the Punjab National Bank, Dehradun, for encashment by clearance. They were credited to his savings bank account on 9th June 1997. However on 30th June 1997, a debit entry for Rs. 32,000 by way of reverse credit entry was made in the account on the ground that the two cheques were returned by Bank of India, Panchsheel Branch, New Delhi with remarks ‘insufficient funds’, vide memo dated 23.7.1997. These cheques were sent to the account holder on 31st July 1997, through courier which were not received by him and perhaps were lost in transit. However, by a letter dated 14th February 1998, the bank intimated the account holder about the same and the bank is trying to get duplicate warrants issued in lieu of those lost in transit. However the bank could not succeed in its efforts.

3. Alleging deficiency in service, a consumer complaint was filed claiming the amount of the two cheques and interest and damages by the petitioner. The District Forum after hearing the parties appreciated the evidence before it and partly allowed the complaint and awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 2,500 to be paid by the Bank to the complainant. Not satisfied by the verdict of the District Forum complainant/petitioner before us filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records of the case. It is clear from the records that the complainant had not impleaded the parties who had issued those cheques. Though, the bank had not intimated the account holder about the loss of the cheques, which were credited to his account for about eight months the complainant had enough time to initiate proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the drawer of the cheque. In a catena of judgments, the National Commission has held that the case tantamounts to deficiency in service by the bank, but the bank cannot be held liable to reimburse the value of the cheque lost in transit but the Consumer Fora can award compensation commensurate with the deficiency in service.

5. The ratio of this case is covered by our decisions in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal and Another1 and Canara Bank v. Sudhir Ahuja.2

6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Revision dismissed.

*******