1974 Supreme(Mad) 349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. Ramaprasada Rao and S. Maharajan. JJ.
Canara Bank Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Madras .....Appellant(s)
Versus
I. V. Rajagopal .. .....Respondent(s)
A.No. 531 of 1969.
Decided On : 16 August 1974
Advocates:
M. L. Nayak, for Appellant.
Chalapathy Rao, for Respondent.
Liability of the Bank for dishonour of customer’s cheque.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 31-Suit for damages against the Bank-Job lost by customer due to dishonor of the cheque-Liability of the bank for damages.
Ramaprasada Rao, J.-The unsuccessful defendant-Bank in O.S. No. 4820 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant. The plaintiff bad a personal account with the Canara Bank Limited, at its Madras Branch hereinafter referred to as. the Bank on 6th April, 1964. The plaintiff was the representative of a reputed group of concerns in Coimbatore, popularly known as M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company, Limited, Coimbatore, and its sister concerns at Madras. The group companies had a liaison office at Madras at No. 12/2, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Madras. There was a telephone in the Madras office of the group companies, which was apparently intended for the advantage and benefit of the sister concerns and which was in the sole administrative custody of the plaintiff. In the course of his official duties, the plaintiff gave a cheque for Rs. 294-40 towards the telephone bill for the aforesaid telephone admittedly standing in the name of the said M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited. This cheque was drawn on the personal account kept by the plaintiff’ with the defendant-bank. On 8th April, 1964 when the cheque came for clearance, the defendant did not honour the cheque, though the plaintiff had a sum of Rs. 652.-83 to his credit in his account with the bank. On 24th April, 1964, the telephone department advised the plaintiff of the dishonour of the cheque. The plaintiff met the officials of the Bank on 28th April, 1964 and according to the defendant, the manager of the Madras Office of the Bank expressed regret for what all happened. It is said that the manager of the department approached the telephone department and requested them to re-present the cheque for payment. Apparently, the telephone department was not interested in such representation. As the telephone bill remained unpaid, the telephone was disconnected on 6th May, 1964. But on prompt steps taken by the plaintiff it was restored on 7th May 1964. The plaintiff tried to explain to his employers the circumstances under which the cheque was dishonoured and how the telephone was disconnected and later restored. The plaintiff’s employers, however, did not, accept the explanation and on 15th June, 1964 the plaintiff’s services were terminated. According to the plaintiff, he lost the job, which was fetching him a sum of Rs. 600 per mensem besides free boarding and lodging and a car for his conveyance, on the sole ground that the plaintiff did not pay the telephone bill in time as a result of which the telephone was disconnected. The plaintiff says that the defendant was mainly responsible for not having honoured the cheque, when there was sufficient money to his credit and such negligence on the part of the defendant bank which was wilful resulted in himself being dismissed from the reputed group concerns of M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, Coimbatore. He would allege that but for this happening, he would have continued in the mill for a period of 10 years with better prospects and advantages and might have earned about Rs. 75,000 which had been lost once and for all. The plaintiff however, limited his claim for compensation or damages against the defendant-bank for loss of earnings fcr a period of five years, which he estimated at Rs. 36,000 and also claimed a sum of Rs. 14,000 for loss of prestige and status and for mental agony caused to him by losing his covetabie job. As the plaintiff’s notice of demand was not respected, he filed the present action informa pauperis for recovery of Rs. 50,000 being the damages suffered by him because of the wrongful dishonour of the cheque by the Bank.
2. In the written statement the defendant admits that the plaintiff had a current account with its branch office at Thambu Chetty Street, Madras, and that the plaintiff was working as the representative of Messrs. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited. They would concede that by mistake and oversight the cheque for Rs. 294-40 presented by the Telephone Department was dishonoured and that t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document