National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of India vs Muntha Lakshmi Kumari on 17 December, 2008
BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3438 OF 2004 (From the Order dated 21.06.2006 in Appeal No. 117/2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) STATE BANK OF INDIA, PETITIONER ADB, KAREMPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522614 (A.P) VERSUS MUNTHA LAKSHMI KUMARI, RESPONDENT D/o KRISHNA MURTHY, NPS COLONY, KARAMPUDI, GUNTER DISTRICT. BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER HONBLE MR. B.N.P. SINGH, MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. R.K. DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE. FOR THE RESPONDENT: NEMO. PRONOUNCED ON : .12.2008 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN J., PRESIDENT State Bank of India, ADB, Karempudi (hereinafter referred to as petitioner for short) has filed the present Revision Petition assailing the Order dated 21.06.2004 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission for short) where under and by which the State Commission has upheld the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short). The District Forum by its Order had directed the petitioner to pay the cheque amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of presentation of the cheque, i.e., 21.09.1996 till its payment. Rs. 200/- were awarded as costs.
Shortly stated, the facts of the case are: -
Respondent-claimant (hereinafter referred to as respondent for short) had a bank account with ADB, Karampudi Branch, Guntur District of the petitioner-Bank. On 21.09.1996, the respondent deposited a cheque bearing No. 6500454 for Rs.20,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Miryalaguda with the petitioner-Bank. Petitioner sent the cheque for collection to the State Bank of India, Miryalaguda on 23.09.1996 through courier agency, viz., The ANL Parcel Services. The envelope carrying the cheque was lost in transit between Karampudi and Miryalaguda. Petitioner, by its letter dated 10.01.1997 (copy of which was endorsed to the respondent), asked the courier agency to locate the cover containing the cheque. The courier agency, by its letter dated 13.01.1997, reported that the cover had been misplaced.
Subsequently, the respondent was orally requested to obtain a duplicate cheque from the drawer of the cheque. Without making any effort to obtain the duplicate cheque from the concerned drawer, the respondent filed the complaint against the petitioner-Bank before the District Forum, Guntur praying for a direction to the petitioner to pay the cheque amount along with interest @ 24% from the date of deposit. Rs.10,000/- were claimed towards costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of presentation of the cheque, i.e., 21.09.1996 till its payment. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned Order.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard. None has appeared for the respondent even on the last date of hearing. Order to be proceeded ex-parte.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Bank could not be held liable to pay Rs.20,000/- being the entire cheque amount with interest in the absence of any proof to the effect that the cheque deposited with the petitioner-Bank had been misused or encashed by someone else. That the respondent, in spite of being asked to get a duplicate cheque from the drawer of the cheque to enable the petitioner to collect the payment, failed to do so which shows that there was no loss caused to the respondent. As per law, the respondent was entitled to compel the borrower to issue a duplicate cheque. That the petitioner was under
obligation to pay the amount of cheque only after receiving the funds from the bank of the borrower. Since the same could not be done, the petitioner could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount to the respondent along with interest. We find substance in these submissions.
Petitioner received a cheque from the respondent on 21.09.1996 and on 23.09.1996, the said cheque was handed over to the courier agency for being sent to the drawee Bank for collection. The same was dispatched but was unfortunately lost in transit. Respondent failed to get a duplicate cheque in spite of being asked to do so. Respondent has failed to show by leading any evidence that there was loss caused to him in as much as that the cheque has been misused or encashed. In the absence of any proof to that effect, the petitioner-Bank could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount. The petitioner was under an obligation to pay the amount of cheque only after receiving the funds from the bank of the borrower. Since, the same could not be done, the petitioner could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount along with interest. We hasten to add that though the petitioner-Bank is not liable to pay the cheque amount but it does not mean that there was no deficiency in service on petitioners part. It cannot escape its liability for payment of reasonable compensation to the respondent, which we assessed at Rs.5,000/-.
To the same effect, is a view taken by this Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal & Anr. reported in IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC).
Against a similar Order passed by this Commission, another Bank had carried the matter to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court upheld the Order passed by this Commission. The same is reported as Citibank N.A. v. Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd. and another [2008 CTJ 561 (Supreme Court) (CP)]. In the said case, Supreme Court held as under: -
9. This appeal filed by Geekay for not getting adequate compensation for the total amount of loss incurred by it is misconceived. For the recovery of total amount of loss, it is open for the appellant Geekay to file a civil suit before the appropriate Court which, we are informed has already been filed. The National Commission could have awarded compensation only for the deficiency of service only. The said compensation has been awarded by the National Commission. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by Geekay also. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs insofar as proceedings before this Court are concerned.
Order under challenge directing the petitioner-Bank to pay the cheque amount is set aside. However, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the respondent as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Bank. The petitioner is directed to remit this amount through a pay order to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the receipt of this Order by the petitioner. No costs.
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT ..
(B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER ..
(B.N.P. SINGH) MEMBER