National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mohd. Ayub vs Central Bank Of India And Anr. on 28 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: II(2006)CPJ185(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. The short point involved in this case is whether the bank which received the cheque, misplaced the same and could not ensure credit of the amount to the payee for six months after its receipt amounts to deficiency of service. The obvious answer is yes.
Brief facts are as follous :
2. The complainant on 25.11.1989 presented a cheque No. 138714508 of US Dollars 1400.92 issued from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian General Organisation for Social Insurance in favour of the complainant before the opposite party - Manager, Central Bank of India, Goryakothi Branch. The validity period of the instrument was six months. The Goryakothi Branch had forwarded this cheque through its main office to the Citi Bank at Mumbai for collection vide OCC No. 14/250 dated 25.11.1989. The complainant was regularly visiting the branch of the Central Bank of India to ascertain whether the proceeds of the cheque has been credited to his account but he was advised that the cheque has been misplaced at Bank premises at Mumbai and a request was made to the Citi Bank to inform whether it would be possible for the bank to secure payment from Citi Bank against the indemnity. The Citi Bank did not respond positively. It is later on learnt that there was an order for stop payment by the originator on 26.5.1990. As the amount was not paid to him he filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that:
From the correspondence placed on record, it is abundantly clear chat the complainant is a consumer and even despite that he has not been able to get the payment. It appears that the said bank draft was counte dateded on 26.5.1991 and, therefore, the bank did not pay. It may be noted that only a conclusion has been reached about the counter-manding without any reasons, whatsoever. It may be noted that the complainant took steps well in time so that the opposite party is in a position to collect the money and pay the same to the complainant/ consumer or credit the same in the account of the complainant. The validity of the draft for payment has expired due to the negligence of the opposite party bank, and, therefore, the responsibility for countermanding of the draft is on opposite party's bank. It is a matter of regret that a long period has elapsed and so far the draft has not been paid to the complainant.
The opposite party's bank is directed to pay to the applicant amount in Indian currency equivalent to US Dollar 1400.92 within one month from the date of this order. If the bank fails to make the payment within the stipulated period, in that event, the opposite party should make payment of interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the draft amount with effect from 6.8.1994.
If the payment is not made within the above period, the applicant is also entitled to costs from the opposite party. The applicant is not entitled to any other amount. The opposite party's bank is free to take any administrative action against the staff. The applicant's application is admitted to the extent, as directed above.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Siwan had filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties passed the following order:
Having gone through the letters produced on behalf of the appellant particularly latest letter dated 14.5.2004 we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to receive any payment with regard to the above two drafts which was deposited by him with the appellant because the originator has stopped its payment as early as 26.9.1990. In the fact and circumstances, the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside. In the fact and circumstances, no order as to cost.
Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner:
4. He submitted that the District Forum has analysed the facts correctly and has passed the order in his favour, whereas the State Commission without application of mind has reversed the order. The bank has admitted that it has misplaced the cheque US Dollar 1400.92 favouring Mohd. Ayub and it could not locate the cheque in their head office for about six months, which is a clear cut deficiency in service. Strangely the State Commission based on a letter of the Bank dated 14.5.2004 has allowed the appeal.
Submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent:
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent drew our attention wherein the General Manager, Central Bank of India, Foreign Bills (Imports) has addressed a letter to the Citi Bank NA, New Delhi dated 21.9.1990. The relevant portion of the extract is given below :
In view of the above, it is very clear that these two instruments were lost at our premises. As we are responsible for realization of these drafts or return of the drafts, we request you to let us know whether it will be possible for us to secure payment from you against an indemnity by us. We request you to send a copy of Indemnity Bond in executing the same and protecting your Bank's interest in making payment of these Drafts' proceed to us.
6. The International Division of the Central Bank of India has sent a letter dated 3.1.1991 to Foreign Bills Department, Mumbai Main Office, wherein it is mentioned that:
With reference to the above, we are informed over phone by Mr. Atul Kumar of Citi Bank, New Delhi as under:
Draft No. 138676877 for US D 525.42.
This draft has been stopped by the originator on 21.4.1990. Citi Bank stop reference number was 410117094. Draft No. 138714508 for US D 1400.92 This was stopped by the originator on 26.5.1990. Citi Bank stop reference number was 410146767. Findings:
7. It is clear from the above that the Central Bank does not dispute the fact that the cheque was lost by them and could not trace the same for long. This is clear from their letter dated 21.9.1990 addressed to the Citi Bank, New Delhi wherein they have, admitted that these instruments were lost at their premises. Secondly, on 25.11.1989, Cheque No. 138714508 US Dollar 1400.92 was deposited in the Central Bank of India, Goryakothi Branch, Siwan and the same was stopped by the originator on 26.5.1990 which is six months after the presentation of the cheque. Further the letter by Mr. Pat D'Souza, Chief Officer, Central Bank of India addressed to the Regional Manager, Siwan under whose control the Goryakothi Branch functions has clearly stated that "we regret this lapse". Despite this we fail to understand why the State Commission has reversed the decision of the District Forum based on the letter dated 14.5.2004 addressed by the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Siwan addressed to Mr. Prashan Vedasen, Advocate. This reads as follows:
In the above matter our Central Office was informed over telephone by Mr. Atul Kumar of Citi Bank, New Delhi that payment of Draft No. 138714508 for US Dollar 1400.92 was stopped by originator on 25.5.1990 Citi Bank, stop reference number was 410146767.
Photocopy of our Central Office, International Division and Chief Officer Foreign Bills Department, Mumbai dated 3.1.1991 and 11.1.1991 are enclosed herewith.
The above letter cannot be the basis for shielding the bank from its admitted lapse.
8. There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that there is a clear cut deficiency of service by the Central Bank of India in this case. Negligence by the public functionaries especially those who are well paid cannot be tolerated. The Apex Court in its celebrated judgment in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta has , has held that:
Today the issue thus is not only of award of compensation but who should bear the brunt. The concept of authority and power exercised by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has undergone tremendous change with passage of time and change in socio-economic outlook. It is unfortunate that matter which requires immediate attention linger on and the man sin the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearnance appears to be totally dead. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proptionately where there are more than one functionaries.
9. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the State Commission and confirm the order of the District Forum, Siwan. We also award Rs. 10,000 as cost to the revision petitioner.