National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, ... vs K. Swamanna S/O K. Subba Rayudu on 17 July, 2006
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 11.11.04 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderbad dismissing appeal against the order dated 13.09.01 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party bank was directed to pay amount of Rs. 19,608/- with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint i.e. 7.07.2000 and compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the respondent/complainant.
2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Respondent was having saving bank account No. 406 with the petitioner. Respondent sold chilly crop to M/s. Sarpan Agri Horticultural Research Centre, Dharwad for an amount of Rs. 19,608/- . He was issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 327284 dated 27.09.98 of Union Bank of India, Dharwad for the said amount by Shri S.B. Gaddaginath, Managing Partner of the said firm. Cheque was deposited in said saving account for realization by the respondent on 25.09.98. On amount of cheque not being credited the respondent got legal notices dated 31.12.2000 and 27.02.2000 issued to the petitioner bank. On amount of cheque still not being paid, complaint seeking certain reliefs was filed by the respondent which was contested by the petitioner bank. It was alleged that the respondent sent the cheque in question for collection to Indian Bank, Dharwad branch on 25.03.98; though respondent sent a number of letters to its Dharward branch to trace out the cheque but till now that branch had not returned the cheque; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; respondent has received letter from Union Bank of India, Dharwad dated 27.7.2000 stating that the cheque in question was returned for want of insufficient fund; amount of Rs. 19,608/- was not received by the respondent from Union Bank of India, Dharwad on whom the cheque was drawn by the drawer - M/s. Sarpan Agri Horticultural Research Centre, Dharwad.
3. Contention advanced by Shri U.C. Mittal for petitioner was that the bank cannot be held responsible for payment of the entire amount of cheque which after dishonour was sent through Maruti Air Courier, Dharwad by the Dharwad branch of the petitioner bank but was not delivered to the petitioner. By the letter dated 4.05.99 (copy at page 73) the respondent himself had asked the drawer to issue duplicate cheque in lieu of the cheque in question which was lost. However, respondent has filed affidavit dated 11.02.05 denying that the said letter dated 4.5.99 was sent by him to M/s. Sarpan Agri Horticultural Research Centre, Dharwad. It was pointed out that this letter was not before the District Forum nor is mentioned in the written version filed by the petitioner. Obviously respondent disputes that he had any knowledge of the dishonour of cheque on ground of insufficiency of funds. To be noted that in para No. 9 of the written version and in the list of documents filed by the petitioner a reference is made to the letter dated 27.07.2000 sent by Union Bank of India, Dhardwad to the said branch of the petitioner bank. Copy of this letter is at page 68. This letter notices that the cheque for Rs. 19,608/- was presented in clearing and returned on 29.09.98 for the reason of "insufficient fund". Cheque was drawn on M/s. Sarpan Agri Horticultural Research Centre. Genuineness of this letter cannot be doubted. It, thus, stand proved beyond any shadow of doubt that cheque in question on being presented was returned for "insufficient fund". After dishonour of subject cheque the remedy available to the respondent was to have a suit filed for recovery of the amount of Rs. 19,608/- being price of chilly crop against M/s. Sarpan Agri Horticultural Research Centre - drawer of the cheque who have not been arrayed as party. It is not in dispute that factum of loss of cheque in question during transit was brought to the notice of respondent by the petitioner bank well before the expiry of three years period from the date of issue of subject cheque. Respondent cannot seek payment of the entire amount of subject cheque and claim only compensation for deficiency in service on part of petitioner bank in not returning the cheque to him. We are supported in our view by the decision of this Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajinder Lal and Anr. IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC). Order passed by both the fora below, thus, cannot be legally sustained. To be noted that by the order dated 27.01.05 the operation of the impugned order passed by State Commission was stayed subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner bank with the State Commission. This amount on being deposited is stated to have been withdrawn by the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case we quantify the amount of compensation to be paid to the respondent at Rs. 10,000/-.
4. For the foregoing discussion while allowing revision the orders passed by fora below are set aside and respondent is awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which has already been paid to him. No order as to cost.