IMPORTANT POINT
Bank cannot refuse to return unpaid cheque to drawee.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Aggrieved by order dated 20.10.2011, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short ‘State Commission’), petitioner has filed this revision petition.

2. Brief facts are that respondent no.1/complainant was given a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs by Shri R.Siva Sankar - respondent no.3, herein. Respondent no.1, presented the said cheque to his banker - respondent no.2/opposite party no.1 for collection. Respondent no.2 sent the cheque for collection to petitioner’s bank/opposite party no.2 on 9.8.2010. The said cheque was not encashed due to “insufficient fund” in the account of respondent no.3. Accordingly, petitioner sent the cheque to respondent no.3. It is alleged by respondent no.1 that, petitioner ought to have sent the cheque and the endorsement to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 ought to have handed over the cheque and endorsement to respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.1 on the basis of cheque and bank’s endorsement as “insufficient fund”, had to file a private complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. before Magistrate’s Court for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against respondent no.3. But due to the negligence on the part of petitioner and respondent no.2, respondent no.1 could not get the said cheque and endorsement of the Bank and as such respondent no.1 was not able to prosecute respondent no.3 u/s 138 of the Act due to delay. The cheque amount is Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. It is further stated that there is no proper information from the petitioner as well as to respondent no.2. Thus, there is gross negligence on the part of the petitioner and respondent no.2. Accordingly, respondent no.1 prayed that petitioner and respondent no.2 be directed to return the above said cheque as well as endorsement forthwith and settle the matter and pass orders the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. Respondent no.2 in its reply, admitted all the allegations made by respondent no.1. It is further stated that cheque was sent for collection. However, negligence and mistake has been committed by the petitioner in not returning the cheque to respondent no.1 and as such respondent no.2 is not liable for any action.

5. Petitioner in its reply has stated that there is no privity of contract between it and respondent no.1, as respondent no.1 has not availed any services of the petitioner. Respondent no.1 is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘Act’).

6. However, petitioner admits that while dispatching the said cheque and return memo, by inadvertently the same was sent to the account holder i.e. respondent no.3. Thereafter, petitioner immediately approached respondent no.3 and requested him not to bounce the cheque. Petitioner has made sincere efforts to get back the bounced cheque. As such, question of deficiency of service on the part of petitioner does not arise at all.

7. District Forum, vide order dated 29.7.2011, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to return the bounced cheque along with the necessary endorsement to respondent no.1, through respondent no.2, within thirty days from the date of the order. It further directed that in case, petitioner fails to return then, it shall be liable to pay Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from 9.8.2010 until actual payment. In addition, petitioner had to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for inconvenience caused to him and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

8. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission and the same was dismissed, vide impugned order.

9. This is how the matter has reached before this Commission.

10. At the outset, we may point out that in the initial complaint filed by respondent no.1, there were only two respondents. However, in the present revision, petitioner without seeking any permission from this Commission has impleaded Mr.