The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a bank loses a cheque during a transaction, it is liable to pay compensation only and not the cheque amount.

JUDGMENT :

MR. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This appeal has been filed by the HDFC Bank Limited, appellant/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) against the order dated 12.11.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short “District Forum”).

2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Sachit Kumar, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called “the respondent”) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) against the appellant, making averments that he is having a saving account No. 111201000113281 in his name with the appellant and there was no complaint. One account payee cheque No. 943900 dated 3.4.2008 for Rs. 21,300/- drawn on ICICI Bank Limited issued in favour of the respondent by Jaswant Singh, Partner of M/s. Pioneers Consultant was presented to the appellant, but the same was dishonoured and was returned to the respondent on 23.8.2008. The respondent again presented the original cheque to the appellant for its encashment and collection on 27.9.2008. Till date, the respondent is unaware about the said cheque as neither the cheque has been credited in the account nor the same has been returned to the respondent. The respondent approached the officials of the appellant and demanded the cheque, but he was put off on one pretext or the other. The validity of the cheque was upto 2.10.2008 and the same has expired. The original cheque has not been returned and that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The appellant is liable to pay Rs. 21,300/- being the amount of cheque along with interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses and accordingly, it was prayed.

3. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is false and frivolous. Timely and efficient services were provided to the respondent and there is no cause to file the present complaint. The respondent presented the cheque in question only once in his account and it was dishonoured and returned to the respondent.

4. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent presented the cheque dated 3.4.2008 on 23.8.2008 and the same was dishonoured and was returned to the respondent. It was denied that the respondent again presented the cheque on 27.9.2008. Denying the allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective versions by way of affidavits and documents.

6. The learned District Forum after hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, observed that the certificate Ex.C-2 contains admission of the appellant that it returned the cheque in question on 23.8.2008 and the respondent again presented it in the bank on 29.9.2008, but the cheque was misplaced in the courier. The admission of the appellant belies its defence that the cheque was never presented on 29.9.2008 by the respondent. By not crediting the amount of the cheque or by not giving any intimation amount to deficiency in service. The complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 21,300/- being the amount of the cheque with interest @ 9% p.a. from 15.10.2008 till payment and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.11.2009, the appellant has come up in the present appeal.

8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the District Forum and have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant and the respondent.

9. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that vide letter Ex.C-2, it was mentioned that the cheque was presented again by the customer on 29.9.2008, but was misplaced by the courier and the same was confirmed by the courier person. The District Forum held that the courier is the agent of the bank and held the