IMPORTANT POINT
Banking services – Deficiency in service – Manifest deficiency in service on part of OP/Bank in dealing with cheques delivered by complainants, which could not have been encashed as same had become stale by the date on which those were passed on to payee bank.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member.—These Consumer Complaints have been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and, seeking compensation along with interest.

2. The facts and question of law involved in these Complaints are similar in all material particulars, therefore these Complaints are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, CC No.123 of 2019 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are extracted from this Complaint.

3. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant holds a Savings Bank Account with the Opposite Party at its Maharani Bagh Branch (Ashram Chowk), New Delhi, with Account No.0349101015565. On 29.05.2018, she deposited two CTS cheques into this account. The first cheque No.46382 dated 03.03.2018 was for Rs.11,36,868/- while the second cheque No.46381 dated 03.03.2018 was for Rs.94,73,900/. Both these cheques were issued in the Complainant’s favour by Assotech Ltd. and drawn on Vijaya Bank, S.S.I. Branch, Noida. On 01.06.2018, the Opposite Party credited the amounts of Rs.11,36,868/- and Rs.94,73,900/- into the Complainant’s account. These transactions were recorded at 13:01:34 hrs. and 14:55:06 hrs., respectively, as indicated by the description “clg New Delhi accounts section, Vijaya Bank (VJB)” on the account statement. However, on the same day, both amounts were debited from the Account under the description “Online cheque return”.

4. Later in the day, the Complainant received SMS notifications on her registered mobile number indicating that Rs.11,36,868/- and Rs.94,73,900/- had been debited from her Account. Another SMS followed stating that cheque No.46381 for Rs.94,73,900/- which was deposited on 29.05.2018, had been returned due to a “connectivity failure”. On 05.06.2018, the Opposite No.46381 into the Complainant’s account at 11:41:18 hrs. Yet, later that day, the same amount was debited once more, recorded at 17:48:40 hrs. with the same “Online cheque return” description. The Opposite Party also debited Rs.177/- from the Account as collection charges for the cheque return. Subsequently, cheque No.46381 for Rs.94,73,900/- was returned to the Complainant with a return Memo dated 05.06.2018 stating the reason “Instrument out dated/stale”. On 11.06.2018, the Opposite Party credited the amount of Rs.11,36,868/- from cheque No.46382 into the Complainant’s account at 12:21:12 hrs. Once again, the amount was debited from her Account the same day under the “Online cheque return” description, and another Rs.177/- was debited as collection charges for the cheque return. The cheque No.46382 for Rs.11,36,868/- was returned to the Complainant with a return memo dated 11.06.2018, citing “Instrument out dated/stale”.

5. According to the Complainants, the Opposite Party failed to present the cheques for clearing or collection to the drawee Bank within the validity period, causing those cheques to expire. Due to the Opposite Party’s negligence in not presenting the cheques on time, the Complainant incurred a loss amounting to Rs.1,06,10,768/-. This negligence also deprived the Complainant of the legal remedies against the drawee of the cheques, Assotech Ltd., including those available under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Opposite Party is therefore liable to compensate for the loss incurred by the Complainant. On 26.07.2018, through her Advocate, Sri Vinod Agarwal, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice to the Opposite Party demanding compensation for the loss of Rs.1,06,10,768/-. Despite receiving the notice, the Opposite Party failed to make the payment. Due to a typographical error in the initial notice, where the date of deposit was mistakenly mentioned as 29.06.2018, instead of 29.05.2018, a corrected notice was issued on 02.08.2018, and sent to the Opposite Party via registered post with acknowledgment due. The corrected notic