Banks must adhere strictly to RBI guidelines regarding cheque processing to avoid claims of deficiency in service.

ORDER

1. Present appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant/OP-1 M/s Axis Bank assails Order dated 11.12.2023 passed by learned Telengana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in CC No. 194/2019, whereby the complaint was allowed and appellant along with Respondent No. 2 (opposite parties) have been jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs.20 lakhs to the complainant with prevailing bank rate of | interest as on the date of presentation of cheque on 19.11.2018 till realization. Also compensation of Rs.1 lakh has been awarded along with costs of Rs.25,000/-. Appellant along with respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 are hereinafter referred to as opposite parties and complainant respectively, as appearing in the complaint.

2. In brief, as per the case of the complainant, he was having an account with OP-1 (Axis Bank) and had deposited a cheque dated 21.08.2018 for sum of Rs.20 lakhs on 19.11.2018 in the drop box of the Bank. The said cheque was issued by M/s Volio Technologies Ltd. in discharge of their liability and validity of cheque was upto three months. OP-1 sent a courier on 30.11.2018 which was received by the complainant on 04.12.2018, wherein the cheque return memo was enclosed with endorsement “cheque/instrument outdated”. On inquiry from the bank, complainant was informed that they had sent the cheque _ for clearance immediately and the same was returned on 30.11.2018. When the complainant failed to get a reasonable response for non- encashment of the cheque despite being deposited within the validity period, legal notice dated 07.01.2019 was issued. Complainant, claims to have suffered loss of Rs.20 lakhs on account of failure of OP-1 (Bank) to present cheque for encashment in time.

3. It is further the case of complainant that the complaint lodged with Ombudsman did not find any favourable result and was closed observing that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank. In the aforesaid background, a complaint was preferred before the learned State Commission which has been allowed vide Order dated 11.12.2023, as noticed above.

4. OP-1/bank in the written version admitted that complainant is an .account holder and had dropped a cheque in the drop box on 19.11.2018. However, it was claimed that since the cheque was dropped by the complainant in between 01:30 & 01:40 pm, on 19.11.2018, the cheque was taken out of the drop box after 03:00 pm on 19.11.2018, and lodged for clearance on 20.11.2018 at Axis Bank Kothapet Branch in the next day’s zone for uploading to NPCI on 20.11.2018. It was further clarified that as per process adopted by the bank, the cheques deposited in the drop box are taken out at three intervals i.e. 10:35 am, 3:45 pm and 6:10 pm. OP-1 further submitted that truncated image of the subject cheque along with other cheques were supposed to be segregated by NPCI in the next day’s zone i.e. on 21.11.2018 to various banks during late hours of 20.11.2018. Further, since the cheque was valid for a period of 3 months from the date of issue till 20.11.2018 and subject cheque could not have reached the payee bank i.e. SBI on 20.11.2018 for settlement, the same had lapsed. it was further claimed that the bank had acted as per the guidelines and was not at fault. It is also the case of OP-1 that as per CTS guidelines, it ‘is the responsibility of the presenting bank (CTS representative) not to present stale cheques in clearance unless the cheque passes the date of settlement of CTS. Cheque in the instant case is stated to have been booked by OP-1 promptly on 20.11.2018 (date of scanning) but the settlement date of CTS is 21.11.2018 (i.e. a day after presentation of cheque by the collecting banker to the paying banker through CTS).

5. | OP-1 f