National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of India vs M/S. Wtd Sri Italy on 14 February, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 26/02/2010 in Complaint No. 6/2005 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA C-30,DDA SHOPING COMPLEX, DEFENCE COLONY MARKET, OPPOSITE MOOLCHAND HOSPITAL, NEW DELHI-110024 NEW DELHI ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. WTD SRI ITALY VIA DEI CASTELLI ROMANI-22-00040 POMEZIA(ITALY) ITALY 2. The Director, M/s WTD Sri Italy 370-371/2,Sahi Hospital Road Bhogal New Delhi-110024 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms. Vaishali Kakra, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO Dated : 14 Feb 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This first appeal has been filed u/s 19 read with 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 26.02.2010, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. C-6/05, filed by the present respondent M/s. WTD SRI ITALY, vide which, the said complaint was allowed and the appellant/OP was directed to pay a sum of ₹11,98,081/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. to the complainant, being the total amount of 6 cheques, allowed to be encashed by the appellant/OP Bank, despite instructions to the contrary given by the complainant.
2. The complainant M/s. WTD Sri Italy is a company based at POMEZIA, Italy, dealing with works on contract basis and they were holder of a current account, bearing number 01000/071053 with the appellant Bank. Vide their letter dated 04.2.2003, addressed to the Bank, they gave instructions that all cheques issued by them but not encashed yet, should be considered null and void and cancelled. The complainant also stated that they had lost their cheque books as well and new cheque books should be issued. The complainant sent another letter dated 22.09.2004 to the Bank, seeking details of certain cheques. The complainant learnt from the statement of accounts that cheques bearing Nos. 00644043, 00655818, 00655817, 00655812, 00655807 and 00655819, had been cleared / debited from their account by the OP Bank, and were credited to Era Construction (India) Private Limited. Alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank, the complainant first sent a legal notice to them on 05.10.2004, asking them to pay the entire amount involved in the cheques alongwith interest. On the failure of the Bank to do so, the consumer complaint in question, was filed seeking compensation of ₹32,28,000/- alongwith further interest @18% p.a. on the principal sum of ₹22 lakh.
3. The complaint was resisted by the appellant/OP Bank by filing a written statement before the State Commission, stating that the complainant had requested the Bank to stop payment in respect of the following cheques only:-
Cheque No. Date of Issue 666401-500 21/12/1999 667801-900 17/01/2000 676301-400 24/5/2000
The Bank took the stand that apart from the cheques mentioned above, they had not received any other instructions from the complainant to stop payment. The OP further stated that the complainant had deliberately not impleaded M/s. Era Constructions (India) Private Limited, as party in the case which was the beneficiary of the cheques. The complaint was, therefore, not maintainable.
4. The complainant filed a rejoinder, saying that vide their letter dated 04.02.2003, addressed to the Bank, they had requested to stop payment of all the cheques, which had not been encashed till that date. However, despite instructions, the Bank had allowed certain cheques to be encashed in favour of M/s. Era Constructions (India) Private Limited.
5. The notice of the appeal was sent to the complainant/respondent, but they did not put in appearance despite publication of the notice in the newspapers. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have been heard in detail.
6. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant Bank that the complainant was a company based in Italy and had opened a current account with them for commercial purpose. Vide their letter dated 04.02.2003, they had informed the bank about loss of certain cheque books and for issuing the new cheque books. The Bank had stopped payment for the cheques pertaining to the said cheque books. The cheques that they had allowed to be encashed in favour of M/s. Era Constructions (India) Private Limited, were not part of the cheque books mentioned in the letter dated 04.02.2003. The Learned counsel further argued that the complaint was not maintainable, because the beneficiary M/s. Era Constructions (India) Private Limited had not been made a party in the case. The order passed by the State Commission did not reflect a correct appreciation of the facts on record.
7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
8. The letter dated 04.02.2003 sent by the complainant to the OP Bank is reproduced as under:-
"Subject : WTD Account No. 71053 c/o your bank.
Dear Sirs, Please note that I undersigned, Mr. Giuseppe Odone, Italian Citizen holding an Italian passport No. Y 205183, declare that I lost the cheque books released in our name (WTD Sri Italy).
Therefore, please cancel all issued cheques which have not yet cashed till today, and please issue a new cheque book, debiting it c/o our account.
Best regards, G. Odone Following cheques were issued to WTD:
666401-500 21/12/99 667801-900 17/1/00 676301-400 24/5/00
Other than those cheques already issued and cashed, all remaining cheques must be considered void and null.
11:30 on 4th February, 2003 Received by Mr. H.K. Varma on 25/09/04"
10. It is quite clear from the above letter that the complainant gave instructions to the OP Bank to cancel all issued cheques, which had not been encashed till that date. The said instruction has been repeated in the last line of the letter as well. It is not understood, therefore, as to how the Bank ignored the clear-cut instructions and encashed cheques No. 00644043, 00655818, 00655817, 00655812, 00655807 and 00655819 in July 2003. The contention of the Bank that these six cheques were not part of the three cheque books mentioned in the letter dated 04.02.2003, is not tenable, because the complainant had clearly instructed them not to encash any cheque after the date of the said letter. The State Commission have passed a well-reasoned order, bringing out clearly that there was no justification for the OP Bank to allow payment for the six cheques. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld. This appeal, being without merit, is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER