BANK OF BARODA vs DEVI DAS

THIS appeal has been filed by the opposite parties against the order of District Forum, Ganganagar dated 5.1.93 whereby the District Forum allowed interest on the amount of Rs. 20,000/- @ 12% per annum for delayed payment of the amount of the Bank Draft for two months apart from Rs. 100/ for correspondence charges, Rs. 300/- as costs of the complaint and Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental distress and agony.

ON 25.6.92 Devi Das-complainant filed Complaint Case No. 356/92 before District Forum, Ganganagar against Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch, 31-C Block, Ganganagar and its Head Office Baroda with the averments that it had on 25.2.92 obtained a Bank Draft of Rs. 20,000/- from the aforesaid Ganganagar Branch of Baroda in the name of his son who was residing at Faridabad. The Bank Draft was to be encashed by the Nehru Place Branch of Bank of Baroda at Faridabad. The complainant sent the Bank Draft to his son at Faridabad. However, his son Harish Chandra did not receive the Bank Draft since it was lost in transit by the postal authorities. When son of the complainant informed regarding non-receipt of the Bank Draft, the complainant on 9.3.92 made an application to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ganganagar Branch for issue of a duplicate Bank Draft, and his son also instructed the Nehru Place Branch of Bank of Baroda not to encash the Bank Draft in case it was presented by someone else. Opposite party No. 1 told to the complainant that it can issue the duplicate Bank Draft only upon receipt of information from Nehru Place Branch that the Bank Draft had not been encashed. The opposite party No. 1 instead of sending letter to Nehru Place Branch of the Bank at Faridabad regarding matter, wrongly sent the letter to another Branch. Subsequently letter was sent by opposite party No. 1 to Nehru Place Branch at Faridabad and that Branch informed that the Bank Draft had not been encashed. The complainant again approached the Ganganagar Branch and told the Branch Manager that he was in need of the amount urgently and, therefore, duplicate Bank Draft maybe issued without any delay. Opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to furnish a bond on non-judicial stamp of Rs. 50/- and then the duplicate will be issued. The complainant furnished the bond on the requisite stamp, but duplicate Bank Draft was not issued and it was told that the bond should be signed by the person in whose favour the original Bank Draft got issued and signatures of that person should be verified by an official of the Bank in which he had a Bank Account. The complainant thereupon sent the bond document to his son Harish Chandra. His son went to the Branch Manager Canara Bank to verify his signatures on the bond, but the Branch Manager of Canara Bank told that he cannot verify signatures on the papers for the purpose of obtaining duplicate copy of the Bank Draft. He also told that there was no necessity for signatures for obtaining duplicate copy of the Bank Draft. ON 13.5.92 the complainant contacted opposite party No. 1 and told him that there was no necessity of signatures of the person in whose name the Bank Draft was issued. The opposite party No. 1 told that the duplicate will be issued in a day or two. However the same was not issued and ultimately on 17.6.92, the amount of the Bank Draft was paid to the complainant in cash. ON the basis of these averments, the complainant claimed interest on the amount of Rs. 20,000/-from 25.2.92 to 17.6.92@18%perannum apart from Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony and correspondence charges etc. The opposite parties filed their version before the District Forum in which it was stated that it was explained to the complainant that when Bank Draft is issued, it becomes the property of the person in whose favour the same is issued. It was also explained to him that the Bank had its rules with respect to the issue of duplicate copy of the Bank Draft and duplicate Bank Draft can only be issued on compliance with those rules. According to the rules, both the payee and the purchaser have to execute indemnity bond to the effect that the Bank Draft had been lost and if it was later on found, the same would be returned to the Bank. Despite that the complainant did not complete the formality although the payee of the Bank Draft amount was his own son. When the complainant after completing the formalities presented the indemnity bond on nonjudicial stamp of Rs. 50/- and the duplicate Bank Draft was prepared, then the complainant told that amount may be paid to him in cash. Accordingly, the duplicate Bank Draft prepared was cancelled and the amount was paid in cash to the complainant on 17.6.92. It was, therefore, said that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

The District Forum, Ganganagar held that the complainant had complied with all the formalities for obtaining duplicate Bank Draft on 24.4.92, but the duplicate Bank Draft was not issued by the Bank on that day. It was on 18.5.92 that the complainant had made an application for payment to him of the amount in cash and thereafter on 17.6.92 the amount was paid to him in cash by the Bank. It was, therefore, held that the Bank committed a delay of about two months in issuing the duplicate Bank draft and the cash payment was also made after one month of the application of the complainant made for the purpose on 18.5.92. This was held to be deficiency in service and it was held that the complainant suffered economic loss and mental distress and agony. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum, Ganganagar partly allowed the complaint and granted the above-mentioned relief to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

IT may be mentioned that the complainant-respondent did not appear despite notice being sent to him. We have, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. IT was urged on behalf of the appellants that the complainant had been informed regarding formalities to be complied with for obtaining duplicate Bank Draft as required under the rules. According to the rules relating to Bank Draft, both the payee and the purchaser has to execute an indemnity bond on a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 50/- and their signatures have to be verified and thereupon a duplicate Bank Draft is issued. IT was urged that the complainant had not complied with these formalities up to 17.6.92 and, therefore, the District Forum was wrong in partly allowing the complaint. Before the District Forum the opposite parties appellants had produced photo copy of the Bank rules in relation to cases where Bank Drafts are reported to be lost. It is provided in these rules that when a demand draft is reported lost by the purchaser, the branch should verify the signature of the purchaser on the letter with the one appearing on Demand Draft application form. It should be enquired from the drawee branch that whether the draft reported lost was outstanding in their books and they may also be requested to exercise caution when the Draft was presented for payment. The branch should arrange to issue a duplicate draft or refund the amount only after getting the confirmation of the drawee branch that the draft was outstanding in their books. It is further provided that when a duplicate draft is to be issued or refund of the amount of the lost draft is to be made an indemnity as per Annexures IV or V, as the case may be should be obtained on a stamped paper of the value as applicable in the State concerned duly executed by the purchaser, the payee and one or two approved sureties considered good for the amount involved. It would appear from these Bank Rules that the above formalities have to be complied with before a duplicate demand draft is issued for the refund of the amount of the lost draft is made. It is necessary that an indemnity bond on a stamp paper duly executed by the purchaser of the demand draft, the payee of the demand draft and one or two approved sureties should execute it. The complainant was a purchaser of the demand draft and his son Harish Chandra was its payee. The photo copy of the indemnity bond on the file of the District Forum goes to show that while the complainant had signed the indemnity bond on 24.4.92, but the signatures of his son Harish Chandra were only attested on 17.6.92. It is thus clear that the requisite formalities of execution and verification of the indemnity bond was only completed on 17.6.92 and not earlier. Consequently, neither the duplicate demand draft could be issued nor cash payment of the amount of demand draft could be made to the complainant before 17.6.92. Admittedly cash payment of the amount of demand draft had been made by the Bank on 17.6.92. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. The District Forum, Ganganagar was wrong in holding that all formalities had been completed on 24.4.92. On 24.4.92 only the purchaser of the demand draft, viz., the complainant had executed the indemnity bond. The payee of the demand draft had not executed and got the signatures verified on the indemnity bond before 17.6.92. The District Forum was, therefore, wrong in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. No compensation could, therefore, be awarded by the District Forum to the complainant as against the opposite parties.

WE, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, Ganganagar dated 5.1.93 and dismiss Complaint Case No. 356/92 filed by the complainant. Appeal allowed.