IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Payment – Without receiving the payment from the issuer of the payment warrant, the OP Bank cannot be compelled to credit the funds to the Complainant’s account.
(2) Custodian – The OP Bank is the custodian of public money to be held in public interest as per RBI guidelines.

ORDER

This Revision Petition No.2250 of 2016 challenges the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow (‘the State Commission’) dated 18.03.2016. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 2084 of 2010 and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Agra (‘the District Forum’) order dated 15.11.2010.

2. The present Revision Petition was initially dismissed as barred by limitation by this Commission vide order dated 14.09.2018. In response, the Petitioner/OP filed Civil Appeal Nos. 12260-12261 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeal thereby condoning the delay in filing the Revision Petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order of this Commission dated 14.09.2018. As a result, the matter was remitted back to this Commission for determination on merits.

Top of Form

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he had held a Savings Bank Account (No. 1211000003240) with Opposite Party (OP) Bank at Sanjay Place, Agra. On 21.09.2002, he deposited a Payment Warrant (No. 6540222699) for USD $15,000 into his account. The OP Bank assured him that the payment would be credited within about one month. However, even after a year had passed, the bank failed to credit the amount to his account, and they did not provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay despite inquiries. While the complainant had sent notices to the bank, no response was received, and the amount from the payment warrant remained uncredited. Consequently, feeling aggrieved by the bank’s actions, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking redressal.

4. In reply, the OP Bank contended that they did not find any record of the alleged warrant being deposited in their bank, hence the question of crediting the amount to the Complainant’s account did not arise. The Bank claimed that they had duly replied to the notice sent by the Complainant and suggested that the Complainant could have made inquiries with the bank that issued the payment warrant. They asserted that the Bank had fulfilled its obligations as a banker and that there was no deficiency in service. The OP Bank further asserted that inquiries made to its main branch in Mumbai, revealed that the Bank had forwarded the said payment warrant for payment to Canada through ‘Wachovia Bank’, its associate bank. However, the payment was not made due to ‘incorrect domicile details’ associated with the warrant. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that the institution issuing the payment warrant had issued several similar warrants fraudulently. These fraudulent warrants were being retained by Wachovia Bank for investigation purposes, leading the Bank to conclude that the Complainant was not entitled to receive any payment against the aforementioned fraudulently issued warrant. The OP sought to dismiss the complaint.

5. The learned District Forum vide order dated 15.11.2010, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/OP as under:

“Order:

Complaint is accepted. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 09 percent per annum from 21.9.2002 till the date of actual payment within 30 days of this judgment. Apart from this, Rs. 2000/- as cost of the complaint be also paid to the complainant within this period. In default, the complainant will also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on this amount of Rs. 2000/- from the date of judgment till the date of its actual payment.” (Extracted from translated copy)

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/OP filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 18.03.2016 dismissed the same and observed as follows:—

“We have heard the arguments of the Id. Counsel for the parties.

From the perusal of the record, it is clear that this is admitted that the complainant has depo