State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Ramavtar Singh on 6 July, 2010
Appeal No.221/2009 Punjab National Bank,Branch Behror,Alwar Appellant V. Ramavtar Singh,c/o Paan Area Limited,Behror,Alwar Respondent Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Mr.Sashi Kumar Pareek-Member Shri Shashank Sharma,counsel for the appellant None for the respondent Date of Judgement: 06.07.2010 BY THE STATE COMMISSION Heard at admission stage.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant bank which was op before the District Forum,Alwar against the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the District Forum,Alwar in complaint no.355/2008,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant 2 bank in the manner that the appellant bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,150/- with interest @ 9% p.a wef 20.8.07 and further to pay Rs.2000/- as amount of cost of litigation.
3. It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant bank before the District Forum,Alwar on 29.4.07 interalia stating that he was having an account in the bank of the appellant and he had deposited a demand draft no.190493 for a sum of Rs.16,150/- with the appellant bank on 20.8.07 and when the amount of that draft was not credited in the account of the complainant respondent and when he made a query with the officials of the appellant bank, he was told that since the demand draft was of the SBBJ,Branch Kotputli and the same was sent for collection to the drawee bank at Kotputli,but he was told that the draft was lost in transit. Since that amount was not credited in the account of the complainant respondent, therefore,for that deficiency the complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the appellant bank before the District Forum,Alwar on 29.8.08 and the case of the appellant bank was that the demand draft was sent to the drawee bank,SBBJ,Kotputli Branch and the appellant bank was informed by the SBBJ,Branch Kotputli that the said demand draft was not received by that bank and further it was replied that the SBBJ,Kotputli was a necessary party and it was alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the 3 parties,through the impugned order dated 19.12.08 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that since the demand draft was lost in transit,therefore,there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank.
4. Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been field by the appellant bank.
5. So far as the leagal position in case of cheque/draft lost in transit is concerned,it is very much clear that where the draft/cheque was sent for collection and the same was lost in transit,the sending bank is held negligent.
6. Thus the fact that since the draft in question was lost in transit,therefore,the appellant bank was rightly held negligent in delivering services to the complainant respondent.
On point of compensation.
7. There are series of judgements delivered by Hon'ble the National Commission indicating the position of law in the manner that in case draft/cheque is lost in transit and where the amount was not credited in the account of the complainant and further the draft/cheque in question had not been returned by the bank,the bank would be liable to pay some amount of compensation and not entire amount of cheque and for that following judgements delivered by the Hon'ble National Commission may be referred to:
Revision Petition No. 3363/04 decided on 4.12.06, Canara Bank V. Sudhir Ahuja reported in 1(2007)CPJ I (NC Revision Petition No.2808/04 decided on 17.7.06, Corporation Bank V. NCS Films.4
8. Taking that into consideration the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the entire amount of the draft to the tune of Rs.16,150/- was ordered to be paid by the appellant bank to the complainant respondent could not be sustained and thus the complainant respondent is entitled to some sort of compensation from the appellant bank and not full amount of the draft.
9. The appellant bank while prefering this appeal had deposited a sum of Rs.9,075/- before the District Forum,Alwar.
10. In our considered opinion,the above amount of Rs.9,075/- would be just, proper and equitable compensation for the deficiency committed by the appellant bank and thus on point of compensation,this appeal deserves to be allowed partly.
11. Accordingly,the appeal is allowed partly in the manner that the appellant bank would pay only a sum of Rs.9,075/- as amount of compensation to the complainant respondent in lumpsum in place of Rs.16,150/-,as ordered by the District Forum and to that extent the impugned order dated 19.12.08 passed by the District Forum,Alwar shall be treated as modified. Since that amount had already been deposited by the appellant bank with the District Forum,Alwar the complainant respondent is free to withdraw that amount from the office of the District Forum,Alwar with interest that had accrued on it.
Member Member President A/G