State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P N B vs Rajesh on 3 August, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2568/2015 ( Date of Filing : 15 Dec 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/11/2015 in Case No. C/14/2012 of District Muradabad-II) 1. P N B Muradabad ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Rajesh Jyotiba Phuley Nagar ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 03 Aug 2022 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Appeal No.2568 of 2015 Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, Mr. Satish Chandra having its branch office at KUMS, ( Naveen Mandi Samiti) Majhola, Moradabad, U.P. ...Appellant. Versus 1- Sri Rajesh s/o Jiraj Singh, R/o Brahmano Wali Madiya, Post Paitikala, PS Didoli, Jyodibaphoole Nagar (U.P.) 2- Canara Bank, 6, Dr. Sudhir Boss Road, Kiddar Pore, Kolkata. 3- Axis Bank, Loknayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dak Bangala Crossing, Patna. 4- M/s Madhur Courier Services through agent/ Manager, Mr. Jitendra Singh s/o Sri Munsi Singh, R/o 35m New Cloth Market, Moradabad. ...Respondents. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member. Sri Mohit Chawala, Advocate for the appellant. Sri R.N. Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1. Sri Nand Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.4. None for the respondents no.2 & 3 Date 15.9.2022 JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Vikas Saxena, Member:This appeal has been filed under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2015 parts by The District Consumer disputes Forum-II, Moradabad in complaint case no.14/2012, Rajesh versus Punjab National Bank and others.
The brief facts of the complainant are these that the complainant has an account bearing number 44290001000069472 in the opposite party Punjab National (2) Bank, Naveen Mandi Samiti.Moradabad. The respondent number one that is the company deposited in an account please check dated 05. 08. 2011 off Rs.1, 28, 700/- of Axis Bank and the bank Banks sent the same to its agent M/S Madhur Courier Service for transmission to its Regional Collection Centre, at Moradabad. The agent/manager of respondent number 4, Courier company with Mala-fide intentions stole the cheque from the envelope and mis appropriated the same. The respondent number one contacted the appellant bank that is Punjab National bank for the proceeds of the cheque then they assured that the cheque will be collected in the account. The complainant wrote many letters and also contacted the bank for collection of the cheque. The complainant again and again contacted the opposite party appellant bank but they kept on assuring him that his money shall be paid in his account. After waiting for a long time, the complainant instituted this complaint. The complainant has said in the complaint that by not paying the cheque deposited in the account with the opposite party Punjab National Bank, it has committed "deficiency in service" by not paying the amount of the cheques and committing the act of negligence by which the cheques were lost.
In their written statement submitted during the proceedings of the complaint the appellant Punjab National Bank admitted that the complainant deposited the cheque of Rs. 1, 28, 700/- issued by Axis Bank into the home of the complainant with the branch office on the 05. 08. 2011 and the appellant bank sent it for the collection regional Collection Centre in Moradabad through a courier service (3) named M/s Madhu Courier Service, the complainant himself informed the appellant Punjab National Bank that the same cheque was encashed In the Canara Bank, it are poor branch, Calcutta in an account in the name of the complainant himself. The appellant doubted that the manager of the courier service or any employee of the same stole the cheque and misappropriated it for his own use. The appellant bank lodged an first information report in the concern police station. The appellant bank has accused Canara Bank that is in cash the cheque in question in violation of provisions of The Negotiable instrument act. The Ms appropriation of cheque in question was just an accident and the appellant bank has not committed any deficiency in service. Therefore, relief sought in the complaint should not be granted on against the bank. On these grounds this appeal has been preferred by the Bank.
This fact is admitted to both the parties of the appeal/ complaint that a few account payee cheques issued by respondent number 3 Axis Bank in the name of the complainant, was deposited by him in his account with the appellant Punjab National Bank for clearing and the appellant sent it to its local clearing-house through a career respondent number 4 M/S Madhur Courier Services. It is submitted by the appellant that the agent/manager of the courier company, with a mala-fide intention stole the cheques from the envelop. The complainant when complaint about non-deposit of the cheques, the appellant bank immediately investigated the whole matter and found that the post sent by courier was not received at the Regional Collection Centre of the appellant bank and it was missing during the transit. After further (4) investigation the appellant bank found that the same cheque was encashed in the branch office of respondent number two Canara Bank at Subash and Bose Road branch Calcutta. In this way the appellant has admitted that the cheque in question was sent by itself through its courier service, which may be considered its agent and the cheque was lost in transit by misfeasance of its agent. The complainant respondent number one has, on the other hand, has asserted that the cheque was submitted by him to the appellant bank being 'Service Provider' of the transaction and the complainant was 'Consumer' in this transaction. The complainant is liable for the misfeasance of its agent therefore, by not encashshing the cheque. In this way, the question before this appellant bench is that: -
Whether, the respondent number 4 appellant bank is responsible for the misdeeds of its agent and therefore has committed deficiency in service regarding account of the complainant by not encashshing the cheque deposited by him?
This is admitted by the appellant in the written - statement submitted during the proceedings of the complaint as well as in the memorandum of appeal that the cheques in question was sent by the appellant Punjab National Bank through its courier respondent number -4, M/s Madhur Courier Service. As the Courier Service Was Engaged by the Punjab National Bank, it can be considered as an agent of the appellant. The master of an agent is responsible for the deeds committed during its services as an agent. This has been given In Section 226 of the Indian contract Act, which is reproduced below: -(5)
226. Enforcement and consequences of agent's contracts.-Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences, as if the contracts had been entered into and the acts done by the principal in person.
The aforesaid section of Indian Contract Act provides that the principal in person is liable for any act done by his agent. Therefore, effect of this provision is that in this case that the bank has engaged the courier service for carrying out its work, and if any default has been committed during this engagement of work the bank shall be liable for the same towards any third party. The case of complainant is even on any stronger footing, because in this case the complainant has not interacted or directly taken any work from the agent of the bank the courier service, on the other hand the appellant bank itself has engaged the courier service for its own work that is sending the cheque to its collection Centre for which the complainant has no concern or control. The bank itself is responsible for its work whether it is done by the bank itself or by its agent that is the courier service in this case. If any default has been committed, the bank is solely responsible towards the third-party that is complainant. The complainant has deposited the check into the bank for taking its service for collecting it into the bank - account of the complainant with the bank. If, the cheque is lost during the collection of the proceeds the bank has liability for deficiency in service.
The opposite party bank has taken and the defence in the complaint that the matter was investigated by the officials of the appellant bank who found that the cheque was in (6) cashed without following them on date and procedure prescribed under Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and normal banking procedures, at the branch office of The Canara Bank, Calcutta in the fake account of Rajesh as the cheque was duly stamped by the appellant bank with its branch office. That it is very important to mention here that when the cheque was stamped by the appellant bank. The appellant bank asserted that the act of collecting the cheque By the Canara Bank and also encashshing the cheque by the Axis Bank be totally against the rules and procedures prescribed under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. He considered the point raised by the appellant bank and concluded that though the other banks also may have collected all in cashed against the procedure yet the loss of cheque by the agent of the appellant bank can be seen by this commission as this amounts to a deficiency in service by the service provider through its agent that is the courier service, for which the appellant bank is vicariously liable to compensate its consumer/complainant. As a consumer court, this commission is concerned only with the deficiency in service in relation to service provider and consumer and in this case undoubtedly, a deficiency of service was committed by the appellant bank towards its consumer.
The complainant/respondent has also raised a valid argument that the appellant bank Newman from the very first day that the aforesaid check where lost because the local cadet clearing center of bank at Moradabad informed the receipt of the cheques on the same day, therefore the appellant's had ample time at their disposal to stop payment of all the three cheques but they did not act, in this way they (7) failed to discharge their duty and thereby allowing the fraudster enough time to comfortably manipulate things and withdraw the money. This point raised by the complainant is also valid and which shows the negligence on the part of the appellant bank and deficiency in the service to words their customer/consumer. In the complaint are the two banks that is Canara Bank And Axis Bank will make parties to the complainant and In the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant has added the courier service as a respondent, but in this complaint no relief can be granted against these parties as these do not have any service provider and consumer relationship with the complainant. The complainant has the liberty to raise his grievance against these parties in order the courts of law but there being no contract of these parties with the complainant, this bench is a consumer court does not find appropriate to grant any relief against the other respondents. the District Consumer Redressal Commission has rightly awarded a compensation inform of refund of money/amount of the cheques along with an appropriate interest finding deficiency of service on the part of the appellant bank. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in this finding and also no reason to interfere in this finding. The District Consumer Redressal Commission has awarded Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as damages, in our opinion, while awarding an appropriate interest on the sum of money of the disputed cheques, this compensation is not required to be awarded. The impugned judgment and order deserves to be amended on this score only. Rest of the judgment and award deserves to be confirmed. The appeal is fit to be allowed partially in this way.
(8)ORDER The appeal is partially allowed. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as damages, in our opinion, while awarding an appropriate interest on the sum of money of the disputed cheques, this compensation is not required to be awarded. The impugned judgment and order deserves to be amended on this score only. Rest of the judgment and award deserves to be confirmed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to record. (Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Jafri, PA II Court 2/tbv [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] JUDICIAL MEMBER