BANK OF BARODA vs L.D. SARAOGI

THE appellant is a banker with whom the respondent has an account. For wrongfully dishonouring of the cheque issued by the respondent towards payment of a bill of the cellular telephone provided by respondent No. 2 company M/s. Sterling Cellular Ltd., the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and loss of goodwill and reputation besides a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards of litigation vide order dated 20.10.2001 passed by the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved it has preferred this appeal. While accepting the contention of the respondent No. 1 that he had been making payments towards telephone bills regularly and the bouncing of the cheque has caused immense mental agony and loss of goodwill and reputation the District Forum has penalised the appellant whereas the respondent No. 2 viz., telephone company has been absolved from its liability of having disconnected the telephone without giving prior notice in view of the payments of the bills being received regularly in the past and single aberration of non-payment of the bill on account of dishonouring of the cheque was deemed sufficient by the said company for disconnecting the telephone.

AS regards the liability of the appellant and its act of deficiency in service the relevant facts are that the appellant has dishonoured the cheque twice and has debited the account of the respondent twice inspite of the fact that the respondent had issued the cheque for the correct amount of the bill namely Rs. 2,032.17 p. whereas the banker of the cellular company namely Bank of America charged Rs. 2,082.17 p. i.e., Rs. 50 more and as a result thereof the appellant informed the Bank of America to claim the correct amount of the cheque and on its representation the Bank of America presented the cheque again with the appellant Bank claiming extra amount of Rs. 50/-. For the purpose of clarification of the discrepancy of the amount claimed the relevant rules of the Reserve Bank of India governing the ''clearance of cheque'' were referred by the District Forum. The said Rule is Rule No. 7 which provides that the Clearing House shall in no way be responsible or liable for the claim arising in respect of unpaid documents and as such the Reserve Bank of India is absolved of any liability due to the non-payment of the cheque. Further in the Procedural Guidelines of Mechanized cheque Processing MICR technology regarding the reconciliation of clearing difference Rule 5.18 clearly states that in case of a cheque listed for a value higher than the actual amount of the cheque the branch may debit the drawee''s account for the actual amount of the instrument, if it is otherwise in order and the excess should be reported to the Service Branch for onward follow up with the Bank/branch concerned, after verifying the position from the cheque processing centres. It appears that it was in the light of the aforesaid Rule that the appellant Bank was held liable for deficiency in service inasmuch as that it did not take the proper follow up procedure as provided by the Reserve Bank of India in the matters of clearance of the cheque. However, in refutation the Counsel for the appellant contends that there was no question of any deficiency on the part of the appellant because the appellant has not refused the payment of the cheque and has only informed the presenting bank to claim the correct amount and the exercise was done twice and if at all there is any liability it is that of the Bank of America which did not claim the correct amount.

We do not find ourselves in a position to agree with the contention of the Counsel for the appellant as respondent No. 1 was a consumer of the appellant Bank and he had drawn the cheque on the appellant Bank and if at all there was any discrepancy with regard to the amount claimed by the Bank of America which was a stranger Bank so far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, it should have been resolved independently by the appellant and the Bank of America. But the appellant was not entitled to dishonour the cheque on account of such discrepancy for which respondent No. 1 was not concerned at all because of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant Bank was rightly been held guilty for deficiency in service. Furthermore, the appellant Bank also did not take any steps for following the procedural guidelines of mechanized cheque processing MICR technology regarding the resolution of clearing differences in terms of Rule 5.18 referred above.

HOWEVER, looking to the peculiar facts of the case and peculiar way of clearance of cheque issued by a consumer in which another Bank was involved we while dismissing the appeal being devoid of merit feel inclined to reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal disposed of.