Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and Shishir Kumar Naik, Member
CANARA BANK - Appellant
Versus
B. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR ASWATHI ENTERPRISES - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1830 of 2007 (From the order dated 9.4.2007 in F. Appeal No. 899 of 2005 of the State Commission, Orissa, Cuttack)
Decided on : 12-02-2008
Mr. Pradeep Dewan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Shashikanta Mishra, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bank's deficiency in service, leading to the loss of a cheque, makes it liable to pay compensation to the affected party under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Cheque - Banking - Consumer Protection Act - [Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g)(ii), Section 2(1)(o)(i), Section 2(1)(r)(i), Section 2(1)(g)(ii)(a), Section 2(1)(o)(i)(a), Section 2(1)(r)(i)(a), Section 2(1)(g)(ii)(b), Section 2(1)(o)(i)(b), Section 2(1)(r)(i)(b), Section 2(1)(g)(ii)(c), Section 2(1)(o)(i)(c), Section 2(1)(r)(i)(c), Section 2(1)(g)(ii)(d), Section 2(1)(o)(i)(d), Section 2(1)(r)(i)(d), Section 2(1)(g)(ii)(e), Section 2(1)(o)(i)(e), Section 2(1)(r)(i)(e), Section 2(1)(g)(ii)(f), Section 2(1)(o)(i)(f), Section 2(1)(r)(i)(f)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, particularly Section 2(1)(g) defining 'complainant', Section 2(1)(o) defining 'deficiency', and Section 2(1)(r) defining 'service'. The court also referred to sub-clauses of these sections to interpret the applicability of the Act in the case of loss of a cheque during transit and the liability of the bank in such cases. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, leading to the modification of the order to pay compensation to the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent deposited a cheque in their savings bank account, which was not credited. The respondent filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service by the bank. The bank contested, claiming the cheque was lost during transit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank was deficient in service in dealing with the cheque, leading to the loss. It concluded that the bank was liable to pay compensation to the respondent.
Issues: The issues revolved around the deficiency in service by the bank, the loss of the cheque, and the liability of the bank under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank's deficiency in service led to the loss of the cheque, making it liable to pay compensation to the respondent under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision and modified the order, directing the bank to pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation to the respondent.
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member - This revision is directed, against the order dated 9.4.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa, Cuttack modifying the order dated 21.9.2005 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh with interest @ 9% p.a. from 2.2.2005 as also Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for mental agony, to the respondent.
2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Respondent/complainant was having a savings bank account in petitioner/opposite party's-Bank. One V.M. Harikumar issued a cheque bearing No. 118613 dated 25.1.2005 of a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh of the State Bank of India, Ramanathukara in the State of Kerala in favour of the respondent. This cheque was deposited for collection in the said account on 2.2.2005 by the respondent. Since the amount of cheque was not credited in the above account, the respondent on 23.3.2005 wrote to the petitioner to credit the amount thereof in his account. Respondent thereafter got a legal notice dated 18.4.2005 served on the petitioner bank. Still amount of the cheque not being credited in the account, complaint alleging deficiency in service was filed by the respondent which was contested by the petitioner-Bank by filing written version. In the written version, maintaining of S.B. A/c, deposit of the cheque in question on 2.2.2005 for collection of the amount thereof by the respondent were not disputed. However, it was alleged that the cheque was not sent to the drawee bank due to non-availability of its address. It was only on 23.3.2005 that the respondent intimated the address of the drawee bank. On account of annual closing period in the month of March and balance sheet audit period in 1st and 2nd week of April, 2005, the bank was unable to send the cheque to the drawee bank. Along with the reminder dated 18.4.2005, the cheque was sent by registered post on 26.4.2005 to the drawee bank. By the letter dated 5.5.2005, the drawee bank informed the petitioner bank that the cheque was not received by it along with the reminder letter. It was stated that the cheque was lost. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner bank as alleged.
3. It is, thus, not in dispute that the cheque in question was deposited in the SB A/c by the respondent for collection of the amount thereof on 2.2.2005, same was alleged to have been sent along with the reminder letter dated 18.4.2005 by post on 26.4.2005 by the petitioner bank to the drawee bank and vide letter dated 5.5.2005 the drawee bank denied of having received that cheque. Relying on the decisions in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal and Another ,(2003) 4 CPJ 53 (NC) and Canara Bank v. Sudhir Ahuja , (2007) 1 CPJ 1 (NC), the submission advanced by Mr. Pradeep Dewan for the petitioner is that on ground of deficiency in service the bank can be ordered to pay compensation but not the entire amount of the cheque. He admitted that the Bank was deficient in service in dealing with the cheque in question. On the other hank, Mr. Shashi Kant Mishra for the respondent has tried to distinguish both these decisions on the ground that this is not a case of loss of cheque during transit. Cheque was lost in the petitioner bank itself. In support of the submission, he invited our attention to the reminder letter dated 18.4.2005 (copy at page 28) sent to the drawee bank and para Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the written version filed by the bank. Said reminder letter being material, omitting immaterial portion, reads thus:
"Sub: Cheque No. 118613 sent to you for collection for Rs. 1,00,000.
We have sent the subject cheque to you vide our OSC No. 49/95 for collection. We regret to inform you that till date we have not received the realization proceeds nor the return instrument if not paid at your end. We furnish hereto the details of the instrument for your perusal and doing the needful.
Cheque No. 118613
Cheque dated 25.1.2005
Drawee SBI, Ramanathukara
A
