IMPORTANT POINT
Missing of cheque by Bank constitutes continuous cause of action.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The burning point of discussion in this case is ‘whether the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986’. Both the foras below have decided that the case is within time and the complainant had got continuing cause of action.

2. The short facts of the instant revision petition are these. M/s Paper Product Machines, the complainant, deposited two cheques totaling Rs.1,50,000 with Allahabad Bank, petitioner/opposite party. The said cheques were drawn on Bank of India, Indore and were to be credited in the account of the complainant. After sometime, it transpired that those cheques were neither credited in the account of the complainant nor were received back. The complainant sent letters dated 20.4.2006 and reminder dated 27.4.2006 to the petitioner-bank. The petitioner-bank gave reply dated 6.6.2006. The extract of its reply dated 6.6.2006 is reproduced hereunder:

“We met several times and discussed on the issue and we have shown our keen intention to get your problem sorted out as quickly as possible. We took up the matter with our Quick Collection Centre, New Delhi thorugh which the said cheques were sent for collection. In response to our letter, our QCS Branch has replied that the captioned two cheques were returned by the Bank on which those cheques were drawn to our QCS Branch reported to be on 23.02.06. But unfortunately our QCS (collecting) Branch did not receive the same till date (may be due to postal disfunctioning).

Under the prevailing circumstances, we would request you to request your client (drawer of the cheque) to issue duplicate cheques for the same amounts, place at the earliest. Meantime, Kindly provide us the drawer’s name, account No. with the drawee Branch etc. to enable us to get the NON-PAYMENT CERTIFICATE from the drawee Bank/Branch through our QCS.”

3. Thereafter, the complainant provided the requisite details and sent number of reminders dated 14.6.2006, 8.9.2006,12.12.2006, 1.5.2007, 4.11.2007, 6.6.2008 but all his efforts did not ring the bell. Legal notice dated 26.1.2008 was also sent to the Bank but it did not evoke any response. Lastly, the petitioner filed a petition before the Banking Ombudsman against the opposite party which was dismissed on 29.12.2008.

4. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum wherein amount of cheques in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation was claimed. The District Consumer Forum accepted the application for condonation of delay, which order was confirmed by the State Commission.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that mere letters and reminders do not extend the period of limitation. She further submitted that order passed by the Banking Ombudsman also does not extend the limitation. In support of her case, she has referred to authorities reported in Sapri Garments Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank1; Haryana Urban Development Authority v. B. K. Sood2; State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries3; Sharma v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.4

6. We find no force in this argument. Till today, the fate of those cheques is not known. The petitioner has failed to explain where those cheques have vanished? This clearly goes to prima facie show that there was deficiency on the part of the petitioner. It also prima facie depicts that bank is terribly remiss in discharge of its duty. The entire story smacks of a fig leaf job. The bank has handled the entire episode in a most ham-handed fashion. Their actions are neither open nor aboveboard. The said cause of action is continuing unless or until the complainant gets that amount.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that all the reminders etc. were not proved on the record and she has filed an affidavit in this context.

8. Let us ignore a