National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of India vs Smt. Sita Devi on 22 August, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1645 OF 2008 (From the order dated 25.01.2008 in Appeal No.485 of 2004 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) State Bank of India Nabha Branch Distt. Patiala Petitioner/Opp. Parties (OP) Versus Smt. Sita Devi W/o Sh. Sham Lal House No. 43, Bank Street, Nabha, Distt. Patiala Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Kr. Singh, Proxy Advocate For Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Radha, Amicus Curiae PRONOUNCED ON 22nd August, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 25.01.2008 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 485 of 2004 State Bank of India Vs. Smt. Sita Devi by which, while deciding appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld, but some liberty was given to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent received cheque No.41648 dated 16.3.2002 for an amount of Rs.30,952/-. Complainant deposited cheque with OP/petitioner for encashment, but amount was not credited in complainants account for long time. On 5.7.2002, complainant made written request to OP/petitioner to look into the matter and credit the amount in her bank account and OP/petitioner assured that cheque amount shall be credited in her Bank Account. On 19.9.2002, OP/petitioner informed the complainant that cheque was lost in transit. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP/petitioner, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP/petitioner resisted complaint, but admitted presentation of cheque by complainant and submitted that cheque was sent through courier for collection and after sometime, OP/petitioner received communication from Hardoi Branch where cheque was sent for collection, that cheque in question was lost in transit and intimation was given to the complainant vide letter dated 19.9.2002.
It was further submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of OP; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to credit the cheque amount in complainants SB A/c. along with Rs.500/- as cost. It was further observed by District Forum that OP will be at liberty to initiate proceedings against postal authorities or may approach drawer of the cheque for issuance of duplicate cheque in the name of complainant. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by leaned State Commission vide impugned order and petitioner was given liberty to recover cheque amount from Food and Supplies Department of U.P., Lucknow who had issued cheque against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as there was no deficiency on the part of petitioner, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that impugned order is consent order passed on the request of petitioner, which cannot be assailed and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant deposited cheque for collection with the OP and OP sent cheque for collection, which was lost in transit. Cheque dated 16.3.2002 was presented for encashment on 28.3.2002, but OP intimated to the petitioner about loss of cheque in transit by letter dated 19.9.2002 by which time validity of period of cheque had already expired.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of deficiency in not crediting amount of cheque in respondents account, petitioner can be held liable for some compensation, but cannot be directed to credit the amount of cheque. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on R.P. No. 5 of 2005 Shri A.P. Bopanna Vs. Kodagu District Co.OP. Central Bank decided on 17.12.2008 by this Commission in which it was held that if a cheque is lost in transit, bank cannot be held liable for the cheque amount. We agree with this view and in normal course, bank cannot be directed to credit cheque amount, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds:
i) Firstly, validity of cheque expired before 19.9.2002 when petitioner informed to the respondent about loss of cheque in transit.
ii) Secondly, impugned order has been passed by learned State Commission as per request of their Counsel, which runs as under:
The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the cheque no. 41648 dated 16.3.2002 for an amount of Rs.30,952/- was issued by the Secretary, Food & Supplies, Government of U.P., Lucknow, and therefore, the appellants be permitted to get the said amount from the department. It was further submitted that the appellants have already deposited a sum of Rs.17,016.50 with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and the judgment of the District Forum be modified accordingly by which the appellants have been directed to credit the cheque amount in the bank account of the respondent.
After hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, we modify the judgment of the learned District Forum dated 17.3.2004 to the extent that the amount of Rs.17,016.50 would be taken out of the cheque amount of Rs.30,952/- and remaining amount would be credited in the account of the respondent within 45 days after the receipt of copy of this order. The amount of Rs.17,016.50 deposited by the appellants with this Commission be remitted to the complainant with interest, if any, by way of crossed cheque/bank draft. The appellants would be at liberty to recover the said amount from the Food & Supplies Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow who had issued cheque no. 41648 dated 16.3.2002 for an amount of Rs.30,952/- in favour of Sita Devi as the appellants have made the payment of this cheque to Sita Devi and they have stepped into the shoes of Sita Devi. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, Food & Supplies Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow for necessary compliance.
Apparently, this is consent order passed by learned State Commission on the request of petitioners counsel, which cannot be assailed in revision petition.
Thirdly, cheque has been issued by Food and Supplies Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow and petitioner has already been permitted to recover the cheque amount from the aforesaid Government Department and in such circumstances, merely by making payment of cheque amount to complainant who is an old lady, petitioner will not suffer any loss because petitioner has stepped into the shoes of respondent and can easily get duplicate cheque from aforesaid Food and Supplies Department and recover money.
7. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed and payment may be credited as directed by District Forum subject to submitting affidavit by complainant that he has so far not received money against the disputed cheque.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k