State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yes Bank vs Veerpal Kaur on 18 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.769 of 2024
Date of institution : 31.12.2024
Reserved on : 24.11.2025
Date of Decision : 18.12.2025
1. Yes Bank Limited, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda through its Branch
Manager Rashi Singla.
2. Yes Bank Limited, Regd. & Corporate Office at Yes Bank Tower,
IFC 2, 15th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone(W), Mumbai-
400013 through its Managing Director.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Veerpal Kaur, aged about 54 years, wife of Sh.Jaswinder Singh,
Resident of Village Channu, District Sri Muktsar Sahib now resident
of 3/9, Opp. Park View Palace, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda.
.......Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
against the order dated 24.09.2024
passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
Moga in CC No.187 of 2020.
Quorum:-
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Presiding Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes/No FA No.769 of 2024 2 Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Hitesh Verma, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER :
The Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&2 have filed the present Appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the complainant was having Saving Bank Account No. 017190100008037 with the opposite party no.1 at Bathinda. Sh.Major Singh son of Sh. Jagga Singh, as per his liability towards the complainant, issued a Cheque No.731076 dated 22.01.2020 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on for A/c No.32596617175 maintained by him with State Bank of India. The complainant deposited the said cheque for encashment in her account no.017190100008037 with the opposite party no.1 on 23.01.2020. However, the payment of the cheque in question was not credited in her account till date nor the said cheque had been returned back to her by the opposite parties. A period of more than five months had FA No.769 of 2024 3 already lapsed. The complainant repeatedly approached the opposite party no.1 and enquired about the cheque in question but the officials of the opposite party no.1 kept putting off the matter on the one pretext or the other. The complainant had also enquired about the cheque in question from the State Bank of India, Malout. The aforesaid cheque had not been received back in the said Bank. The officials of the opposite party no.1 failed to disclose anything to her. She had approached the local Police and lodged a complaint against the opposite parties regarding the same. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 issued a letter dated 23.3.2020 wherein the opposite party no.1 had informed that the cheque in question had been lost in transit and the same was not traceable. At that time, there was lockdown/curfew in the country as well as in the State of Punjab due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic w.e.f. 24.3.2020. The relaxation in the curfew/lockdown was operative from the first week of May, 2020. She had again visited the opposite party no.1 and requested them to make the payment of cheque in question in her account or to arrange duplicate cheque from the drawer Sh.Major Singh. They had refused to redress her grievance. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant with the prayer to issue directions to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 1% per month w.e.f. 23.1.2020 i.e. from the date of deposit the cheque in question by the complainant in her account, to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
FA No.769 of 2024 4
4. Upon issuance of notice of the Complaint, the OPs No.1&2 had appeared and filed their written version by raising certain legal objections. The present complaint was filed by the complainant only to damage the goodwill/reputation of the OPs. There were intricate questions of law and facts involved in the Complaint which required voluminous documents/evidence for determination to resolve the issue involved therein. The complainant had not come to this Commission with clean hands. She had concealed the fact that the OPs had duly intimated to her that the cheque had been lost either in transit or branch. The said cheque had dishonoured twice i.e. initially on 23.01.2020 due to reason of 'Connectivity Failure'. The second time it had dishonoured on 24.01.2020 due to the reason 'Exceeds Arrangement'. The OPs had also sent an intimation to this effect to the complainant vide letter dated 23.03.2020 along with copies of the CTS Return Memo. The OPs had given same intimation to S.H.O. Bathinda as well vide letter dated 19.03.2020. The complainant could have initiated action against the person who had issued the cheque but she chose to file the present complaint against the OPs for claiming the cheque amount. The OPs were not liable to pay any amount under any circumstances. The liability to pay the cheque amount lies with the person who had issued the cheque without having sufficient funds in his account. The OPs had been dragged into an unnecessary litigation by the complainant. It has been pleaded that the complainant had no locus-standi/cause of action to file the Complaint against the OPs. The Complaint was not maintainable, as there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite FA No.769 of 2024 5 parties. Therefore, no liability can be fastened against opposite parties as per law laid down in 2005(2) CLT 436 (Pb.), 2009 (2) CLT 76 (NC) and 2009(4) CLT 298 (SC). The Complainant could have resorted to file Complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or getting duplicate cheque issued by the drawer Mr.Major Singh as per Section 45A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Alternatively, she could have adopted other measures like suit for recovery to recover her amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. Instead the Complainant chose to proceed against the answering opposite parties alleging deficiency of service. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant neither disclosed any reason for not proceeding against the drawer including issuance of statutory notice under Section 138 and 45 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 nor for issuance of duplicate cheque. It was further pleaded that the Complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the Complainant had not impleaded Mr.Major Singh, Drawer of the cheque and the State Bank of India, Kairon Road, Muktsar Branch as parties. Therefore, the Complaint was and the same was liable to be dismissed. On merits, the answering OPs had taken the same pleas and stated that the Complainant was silent in her complaint as to what legal action she had taken against the drawer of cheque from drawer u/s 45A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or any other recovery proceedings in Civil Court etc. In the case in hand, the cheque was issued against a legal existing liability. All other averments made in the Complaint were denied and they had prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
FA No.769 of 2024 6
5. By considering the averments made in the Complaint, the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed vide order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the District Commission. The relevant part of said order is reproduced as under:-
"21. So, taking into consideration all the above mentioned facts, peculiar circumstances of case and case law, the present complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to credit the amount of lost cheque i.e. Rs.8 Lacs (eight lacs) in the account of the complainant within period of 45 days alongwith interest @ 6% from date of deposit of cheque by complainant in OPs Bank i.e. from 23.01.2020 till realization and OPs are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to complainant as compensation and cost of litigation. In case of non-compliance of order within stipulated period, the amount of Rs.8 Lacs shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization."
6. The Appellants/OPs No.1&2 have filed the present Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the District Commission by raising a number of arguments.
7. Mr.Ammish Goel, Advocate learned Counsel for the Appellants/OPs No.1&2 has argued on the similar lines as mentioned in the written reply. Learned Counsel has alleged that the respondent had failed to prove the encashment of the alleged cheque in question by someone else. Meaning thereby, the said cheque had not been encashed till date. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent/Complainant had concocted a false story in connivance with Major Singh, who had issued the cheque. Due to the said FA No.769 of 2024 7 reasons neither the Complaint under section-138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 had been filed by the Respondent against him till date nor the said person had been impleaded as a necessary party in the array of Memo of Parties of the complaint filed before the District Commission. Furthermore, once the cheque in question had not been en-cashed, no liability of the said amount mentioned in the cheque could be fastened upon the appellants in any manner whatsoever. He has relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in the following judgments:-
Canara Bank Versus B. Muraleedharan Nair Aswathi Enterprises reported in 2008(2) CPJ 1;
State Bank of India Versus Muntha Lakshmi Kumari reported in 2009 (1) CPJ 198;
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Versus Neetu Namdhari reported in 2012(2) CPJ 220; A.P. Bopanna Versus Kodagu Distt Co. Op. Central Bank reported in 2009(1) CPR 91;
Vijaya Bank Versus Nector Beverages Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012(2) CPJ 47;
Nandlal Madanlal Zawer Versus Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. reported in 2020(4) CPJ 272;
8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments clearly shows that in such kind of cases only compensation could be awarded against the Bank like the appellants on account of deficiency in service on account of loss of cheque and not the cheque amount involved in the matter could be awarded. Whereas, while allowing the Complaint of the respondent the District Commission had changed the dictum of law as laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid judgments and fastened the entire burden on the Appellants by directing them to pay the amount FA No.769 of 2024 8 mentioned in the cheque. The said direction is arbitrary and illegal. Further, the judgments relied upon by the District Commission had been passed in the years 2000 to 2019. He has relied upon the judgment as Nandlal Madanlal Zawer Versus Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr (Supra) which had been passed on 15.09.2020 which reiterates the law laid down by National Commission in the aforesaid judgment. Thus, as per settled law later will prevail over the earlier judgments. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Commission deserves to be set-aside in terms of the aforesaid settled law.
9. It is pertinent to mention that District Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants are facilitator only to the extent of collection of the amount of the cheque from the concerned quarter and to deposit the same for presentation and collection. The role of the Bank does not guarantee the payment of amount of cheque deposited by Respondent/Complainant. Thus, in the instant case the cheque in question had been returned dishonoured. In such an event the Appellants could not have been burdened with the payment of the amount mentioned in the cheque (Rs.8,00,000) as ordered by the District Commission vide the Impugned order. Further, the said fact also finds support from the ruling laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case titled Canara Bank Versus Sudhir Ahuja reported in (2007) (1) CPJ 1 (NC) , the relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced here below:
FA No.769 of 2024 9
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2 (1)(g) and 14(1)
(d)- Banking & Financial Service-Cheque lost in transit-
neither amount credited nor cheque returned-deficiency in service proved- bank liable to pay some amount of cheque-order of state commission directing op to pay entire cheque amount not legally sustainable-op liable to pay Rs.5,000/-compensation.
10. Even otherwise also, the similar & identical matter came up for hearing before this Commission by way of Appeal No.745 of 2022 titled as Charanjit Singh Versus ICICI Bank Limited wherein, the cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- was involved. Initially, in the said consumer complaint District Commission had granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation qua the Bank. Thus, in the aforesaid appeal the said awarded amount of Rs.2,000/- had been enhanced by this Commission to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with the direction to the Bank to pay the said amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order, failing which the complainant would also be entitled to further amount of Rs.5,000/- vide judgment dated 29.03.2023. Therefore, the present matter is squarely covered under the aforesaid judgment and the present appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the same order. Thus, the finding of the District Commission to this effect are arbitrary and preserve.
11. It has also been submitted that the District Commission has erred factually as well as legally in issuing directions to credit an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit of cheque. It has completely ignore the fact that the respondent/complainant could have recovered Rs.8,00,000/- after FA No.769 of 2024 10 pursuing the remedy under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the dishonouring of the cheque. Thus, the fastening the liability of the cheque amount upon the appellants was not called for and warranted. Therefore, the finding to this effect being perverse and erroneous, deserves to be set aside.
12. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission has erred factually as well as legally while entertaining and allowing the complaint of the respondent as the respondent had not been restrained by the appellants for filing the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the alleged Major Singh who had issued the cheque for recovery of the amount. Besides, the cheque in question could have been proved by the respondent by way of secondary evidence as well in terms of section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The respondent had not placed on record even a single document so as to show that the respondent had filed any complaint against the alleged Major Singh who had issued a cheque. Thus, the Respondent/Complainant had not been deprived of to sue said Major Singh under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accordingly, the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant could not be used as tool for recovery of the amount of cheque from the Appellants. Hence, under no circumstances, liability to pay the cheque amount upon the Appellants could be fastened upon the Appellants in the absence of initiation of any step/ legal proceedings against the said Major Singh. The aforesaid observation find support from the law laid down by the FA No.769 of 2024 11 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Branch Manager, Federal Bank Limited Versus N.S.Sabastian reported in 2009 (3) CPJ 3 as Annexure J-8. The relevant extract of the said judgment is being reproduced here below for ready reference and kind perusal of this Hon'ble Commission:-
"Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138 and 45 - Complaint filed Sustainability of Appreciation of evidence Cheque lost in transit - Remedy for last cheque in question - Held - Where the cheque had been lost in transit the complainant may take necessary steps to obtain duplicate cheque from drawer invoking Section 45A of N.I. Act or approach a competent court for recovery of money - Impugned order are liable to set aside and complaint filed before state commission is also dismissed - Appeal allowed".
13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled law, passing of the findings against the appellants have been in total disregard to the aforesaid factual & legal position. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.
14. Mr.Hitesh Verma, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant has submitted that the decision of the District Commission is perfectly valid and as per law and does not warrant any interference by this Commission. The District Commission has rightly allowed the Complaint after relying upon the decision of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as "Manager, Bank of Baroda and another vs. Chitrodiya Babu Ji Diwan Ji", which has been subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 25.11.2019.
FA No.769 of 2024 12
15. The District Commission has rightly held that the Bank has failed to prove that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient amount. It has rightly held that perusal of documents Ex. OP1/1 and OP1/2 reveals that neither these memos contain any sign or seal of the returning bank nor the same were issued by the returning Bank. Further there is no document issued by returning Bank to the effect that there was no sufficient amount in account of Major Singh to honour the cheque in question.
16. Furthermore, it is relevant to mention that the cheque was presented by respondent for encashment on 23.01.2020, but neither the payment was credited in her account nor the cheque was returned to her and it is only when she made a complaint before the police, then the appellant-Bank woke up and issued letter dated 23.03.2020 Ex. OP1/4, in which it was mentioned as under :-
"Cheque is lost in transit and is not traceable at our end. Please be assured that we have made all efforts to retrieve the instrument. We further request you to take up the matter with the drawer for marking a stop payment of the said cheque immediately and arrange to get a duplicate cheque issued".
17. A perusal of the same reveals that there was no mention of dishonour of cheque. It has been rightly held that if the cheque had been actually dishonoured, then the Appellants would have mentioned regarding the same and the Respondent would not have been requested to take up the matter with the drawer of the said cheque for making stop payment and to arrange a duplicate cheque. It is relevant to mention that even the appellants are not sure as to FA No.769 of 2024 13 where the cheque has been lost. In their letter dated 19.03.2020 written to the SHO, Ex. OP1/3, they have stated that the cheque has been lost in branch, whereas, in letter dated 23.03.2020, Ex. OP1/4, they have stated that the cheque has been lost in transit.
18. It has been further submitted that the appellants have also produced a copy of courier receipt Ex. OP/1. However, perusal of the same reveals that the details of consignor and consignee have not been mentioned, which clearly shows that the negligent approach adopted by the appellants. If the Appellants were vigilant in performance of their duties, then the amount would have been credited in the account of Respondent in timely manner, it would have saved her time & effort. The Bank, after receiving the cheque, for encashment, slept over it in a negligent manner and it only responded when Complainant had approached the police. Only then it had transpired that the cheque has been misplaced by them.
19. That the appellants have miserably failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned decision, which may warrant an interference by this Commission. District Commission has very rightly held in its order that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and had rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is required in it. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
20. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as Respondent No.1. We have FA No.769 of 2024 14 also perused the order dated 24.09.2024 as well as all the relevant documents available on the file.
21. Facts relating to the filing of the Complaint by the Complainant before the District Commission, issuance of notice, raising of oral arguments by learned Counsel for the parties and passing of impugned order dated 24.09.2024 by the District Commission, thereafter filing of present Appeal before this Commission by the Appellants/OPs No.1&2 are not in dispute.
22. The issue for adjudication before us is as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant -Bank as neither the cheque issued by Major Singh to the respondent/complainant was credited in the account of respondent/complainant nor was returned back?
23. To deal with the aforesaid issue, we have gone through the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, it has been observed that she has not impleaded Major Singh-the issuer of the said cheque in the array of parties. Only Major Singh could have explained as to why the cheque No.731076 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- dated 22.01.2020 had dishonoured as alleged by the Bank. Therefore, the averment of the appellants that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party is accepted.
24. Furthermore, we have also perused the documents annexed by the appellants/OPs. As per Ex.OP1/2, the said cheque was presented on 23.01.2020 and it could not be encashed as there are remarks against the caption of Return Reason: 02- Exceeds FA No.769 of 2024 15 arrangement on CTS RETURN MEMO. Furthermore, in the said document, the cheque number is 731076 which was drawn on account No.32596617175. The respondent/complainant has questioned the veracity of said CTS Memo as it does not contain any sign or seal of the returning Bank. Whereas, all the details of the said cheque mentioned by the complainant herself are clearly visible. Therefore, the contention with regard to the authencity of the CTS Memo and other documents raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant in this regard is hereby rejected.
25. Furthermore, the complainant has admitted in the complaint that she had approached the local police and lodged the matter qua the alleged lost cheque. In this regard, we have perused Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/4 wherein the appellants have clearly informed the SHO, Police Station, Bathinda as under :-
"We would like to inform you that below mentioned cheque which were deposited by customers of the Bank for receipt of payment and subsequently dishonored in clearing, have been lost in branch.
The said cheque was to be delivered back to the customers along with dishonor memo stating the reason of dishonor of such cheque.
Details of such lost cheque are mentioned below:
Account Number Payee Account Amount Cheque
Name Number
017190100008037 VEERPAL 8,00,000/- 731076
KAUR
FA No.769 of 2024 16
26. The Appellants had informed regarding the cheque being lost/not traceable to the Complainant on 23.03.2020 as well. It has further been mentioned that the matter may be taken up with the drawer for making a stop payment of the said cheque immediately and to arrange a duplicate cheque. In the said document, the details of the cheque are same as mentioned by the Complainant. Meaning thereby the Respondent/Complainant was duly informed by the appellant bank. It has been observed that the said cheque was issued on 23.01.2020 whereas the Appellant had informed the SHO/Complainant in the month of March i.e.19/23rd March, 2020. In this regard, we are of the view that the Appellant-Bank had informed the complainant at a very late stage. For the said reason, there was a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-Bank. In this regard, it needs to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony due to said deficiency.
27. With regard to the direction issued by District Commission that "OPs are directed to credit the amount of lost cheque i.e. Rs.8 Lacs (eight lacs) in the account of the complainant within period of 45 days alongwith interest @ 6% from date of deposit of cheque by complainant in OPs Bank i.e. from 23.01.2020 till realization". In this regard, we have perused the judgments relied upon by the appellants/OPs i.e. Canara Bank Versus B. Muraleedharan Nair Aswathi Enterprises reported in 2008(2) CPJ 1;
State Bank of India Versus Muntha Lakshmi Kumari reported in 2009 (1) CPJ 198;FA No.769 of 2024 17
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Versus Neetu Namdhari reported in 2012(2) CPJ 220; A.P. Bopanna Versus Kodagu Distt Co. Op. Central Bank reported in 2009(1) CPR 91;
Vijaya Bank Versus Nector Beverages Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012(2) CPJ 47;
Nandlal Madanlal Zawer Versus Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. reported in 2020(4) CPJ 272;
28. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it has transpired that the Bank is not liable to pay the cheque amount but it does not mean that there was no deficiency in service on petitioner's part. Therefore, the direction of the District Commission to credit amount of cheque in the account of respondent/complainant was unfounded. However, the observation with regard to awarding compensation for deficiency on their part with regard to late intimation of lost/untraceable cheque was justified.
29. The Appellants/OPs have also contended that the complainant did not file the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Act, 1881. In this regard, we deem it appropriate to hold that the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy. Therefore, we are not in a position to comment as to why the complainant respondent did not avail remedy under Negotiable Act, 1881 or any other available remedy.
30. In light of the discussion in Para 26 and ratio of judgments relied upon by the Appellants/OPs of superior Courts as well as this Commission (as reproduced in para 27), we are of the view that the FA No.769 of 2024 18 order passed by the District Commission deserves to be set aside qua the direction to credit the amount of lost cheque i.e. Rs.8,00,000/- in the account of the complainant alongwith 6% of interest from the date of deposit till its realization. However, there was deficiency in service on part of the Appellants/OPs as they had informed the Complainant with regard to lost/untraceable cheque after a lapse of almost two months. In this regard, the District Commission had rightly awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
31. Accordingly, the present Appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the District Commission is modified. The Appellants are directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant as directed by the District Commission for causing harassment/mental agony and on account of litigation expenses. Since the cheque in question has not been encashed by the Respondent till date, liberty is granted to the Respondent/Complainant to recover an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as mentioned in the said cheque issued by Major Singh by approaching appropriate Forum/Court.
32. The Appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.5,27,436/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission and deposited an amount of Rs.5,56,121/- in compliance of order dated 16.10.2025. Said amounts, along with interest, which has accrued on the amount deposited by the Appellants, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission after the expiry of 45 days of sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The FA No.769 of 2024 19 concerned party(s) may approach the District Commission for release of the same and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
33. Since the main case has been disposed off, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed off.
34. The Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(SIMARJOT KAUR) PRESIDING MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER December 18, 2025 LB/-