State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Canara Bank vs Sh. Ravindra Bhatt And Another on 28 May, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRA DUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 36 / 2005 Canara Bank ......Appellant Versus Sh. Ravindra Bhatt and another .....Respondents Sh. Shankar Sharan Agarwal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. R.S. Negi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 None for Respondent No. 2 Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Surendra Kumar, Member Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 28.05.2007 ORDER
(Per:
Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 05 of 2001.
2. Complainant Sh. Ravindra Bhatt deposited two bank drafts of Rs. 3,592/- and Rs. 4,456/- (total Rs. 8,048/-) with his banker, Canara Bank (appellant) for realization of the amount and for crediting the same in his Saving Bank Account No. 11426. State Bank of Hyderabad (respondent No. 2) is the drawee bank of these drafts. Both the drafts were lost in transit and the amount of these drafts could not be credited to the account of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service, he filed complaint, which was partly allowed and complainant's banker, Canara Bank was directed to pay sum of Rs. 8,048/-, the amount of both these drafts together with interest and Rs. 1,500/- as cost to the complainant. Complaint was dismissed against the drawee bank.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the complainant (respondent No. 1) and considered their submissions in the light of the facts of the case and legal aspect of the matter in issue. It is not in dispute that the amount of both these drafts had not been withdrawn by someone else. In other words, these drafts have not been misused and State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta Branch, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh had not yet parted with the amount of these drafts on account of cancellation of the drafts by the purchaser, Biotech E. Ltd., Azamabad, Hyderabad, the erstwhile employer of the complainant. In view of this, the deficiency made by the banker of the complainant was to the extent that both the drafts were lost in transit, although the amount of the drafts is intact with the drawee bank. Referring to these peculiar aspects of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was not a case in which on account of deficiency in service, the bank was to be held liable to pay amount of both these drafts with interest and that at the most, a reasonable amount of compensation could have been directed to be paid by the appellant to the complainant. Learned counsel pressed into service the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Sudhir Ahuja; I (2007) CPJ 1 (NC).
4. In the case before the National Commission, cheque was lost in transit and the amount of the cheque was not credited in the account of the drawee (complainant), who deposited the cheque for realization of the amount of the cheque from the account of the drawer. It was noticed that the claim for recovery had not become barred by time and the drawee was well within his right to seek recovery of the amount of the cheque from the drawer. On this premise, the direction to the bank to pay the amount of the cheque was set aside and on account of deficiency in service by reason of loss of cheque, reasonable amount of compensation was directed to be paid by the bank. On the ratio of this reported decision, it can safely be held that the District Forum was not justified in the instant case to direct payment of the amount of both the drafts by the banker of the complainant and at the most, on account of loss of the drafts in transit, reasonable amount of compensation could be directed to be paid to the complainant. Taking into account the amount of the two drafts in question, we are of the view that amount of Rs. 1,500/- shall be reasonable compensation for the deficiency in service by the appellant and the order of the District Forum impugned deserves to be modified accordingly so far as the direction against the appellant is concerned.
5. As stated above and the stand taken by respondent No. 2, State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta Branch, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh in its written statement (Paper Nos. 63 - 64) as well as in the affidavit of its Branch Manager Sh. M. Nanda Kishore (Paper Nos. 95 -
96), we deem it fit and justified to direct it to issue duplicate bank drafts of Rs. 3,592/- and Rs. 4,456/- in favour of the complainant Sh. Ravindra Bhatt without charging any commission so that the complainant may be able to realize the amount of the drafts for which he was legally entitled in view of the drafts having been purchased for his benefit by his erstwhile employer. As stated above, the purchaser of the drafts has not moved the bank for cancellation of the drafts and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, this direction will provide substantial justice to the parties to the case. It shall not be out of place to reiterate that in India, consumer justice is a part of social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution and the above direction will also meet this requirement.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 03.01.2005 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the appellant, Canara Bank shall pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant within 15 days of this order and further that respondent No. 2, State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta Branch, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh shall issue duplicate drafts of Rs. 3,592/- and Rs. 4,456/- in favour of the complainant without charging any commission within a period of one month from the date of this order. No order as to cost. Let a copy of the order be sent by post to respondent No. 2, State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta Branch, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh for compliance thereof.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (SURENDRA KUMAR) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)