National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of Patiala vs Rajender Lal And Anr. on 13 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: IV(2003)CPJ53(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 30.9.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh dismissing appeal and affirming the order dated 7.6.2002 of District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and costs, to respondent No. 1-complainant.
2. Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that V.K. Arora of M/s. V.K. Industrial Corporation, Ludhiana issued a cheque dated 1.5.1999 for Rs. 75,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1. Cheque was drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Service Branch, Ludhiana, respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 2. Respondent No. 1 was having S.B. A/c No. 24569 with petitioner's branch in Sector 19, Chandigarh. On 12.5.1999, the respondent No. 1 deposited the cheque with the petitioner's said branch for collection and crediting the amount thereof in said S.B. A/c. Petitioner sent the cheque for collection to its branch at Ludhiana on 12.5.1999 itself; On some of the visits to petitioner's said branch thereafter, the respondent No. 1 was told that neither the cheque nor amount thereof had been received from respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 made a complaint in writing to the petitioner to know the fate of the cheque and on 13.7.1999, he was intimated in writing that petitioner had not received any intimation about the cheque from respondent No. 2. It is alleged that petitioner was under a legal obligation to return the said cheque to respondent No. 1 to enable him to avail of legal remedy on the basis thereof, against the drawer. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner, which was disposed of by the District Forum in the manner noticed above.
3. We have heard Mr. S.L. Gupta for petitioner and respondent No. 1 who appeared in person.
Aforesaid order of District Forum would show that respondent No. 2 contested the petition by filing written version on 8.10.1999 but it was proceeded ex parte later on; but the petitioner did not file written version, was proceeded ex parte; but was allowed to join proceeding at a later stage through the Counsel. Memo of appeal filed before the State Commission as also the grounds taken in present revision petition would reveal that it is not disputed by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 deposited the cheque in question for collection on 12.5.1999. However, the stand taken is that the cheque was sent by the petitioner's branch at Chandigarh to the branch at Ludhiana for purpose of collection and Ludhiana Branch presented the cheque for clearing on 19.5.1999 by respondent No. 2; respondent No. 2 returned the cheque the same day with the memo - insufficient fund, and the cheque along with that memo was sent by the branch at Ludhiana to the branch at Chandigarh by post but it was lost in transit and, thus, could not be returned to respondent No. 1. In para No. 5 of aforesaid order dated 7.6.2002, the District Forum has extracted the plea taken by respondent No. 2 in the written version and the same being material is reproduced below :
"In this connection we have to inform you that Cheque No. 603370 for Rs. 75,000/- drawn on our client M/s. V.K. Industrial Corporation (C. A/c No. 3245) was presented in clearing on 19.5.1999 by State Bank of Patiala, Service Branch, Ludhiana. It was returned to the State Bank of Patiala on the same date with the memo 'insufficient fund in the clearing house'. We enclose herewith the photocopy of the cheque returning register for your reference and record please."
4. In sub-para (d) of para 4 of the revision petition, it is admitted that respondent No. 2 filed its written version before the District Forum on 8.10.1999. This sub-para also notices the plea taken by respondent No. 2 which has been noticed in above para 5 of the order of District Forum. Obviously, immediately after filing of written version by respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 must have come to know that the cheque in question was dishonoured on ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of V.K. Arora, drawer. It was, thus, legally open to respondent No. 1 to have initiated after 8.10.1999, civil/criminal action based on the said cheque against the drawer thereof. In this backdrop, the petitioner could not have been made to pay Rs. 75,000/- being the entire amount of the cheque with interest by the District Forum/State Commission. However, we hasten to add that as there was deficiency in service on petitioner's part in not informing the respondent No. 1 before filing of complaint about dishonour of cheque on 19.5.1999 and its having been lost in transit, it cannot escape liability for payment of reasonable compensation to respondent No. 1 which we assess at Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, order under challenge being legally erroneous deserves to be modified.
5. Accordingly, while allowing the revision, the order dated 30.9.2002 is set aside and petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation to respondent No. 1. This amount will be remitted through a pay order to respondent No. 1 within a period of two weeks of the receipt of this order by the petitioner.