CANARA BANK vs SUNDESHWARI SAHAY

-THIS revision is directed against the order dated 23. 5. 2001 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U. P. , Lucknow, dismissing appeal against the order dated 26. 5. 1995 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by respondent No. 1 and Ram Sahay was allowed and the petitioner/opposite party No. 2-Bank was directed to pay Rs. 18,000 with interest @ 14% p. a. from November, 1993 to respondent No. 1 and Ram Sahay. Respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 3 was further directed to pay to respondent No. 1 and Ram Sahay, Rs. 500 as compensation and cost of Rs. 200.

FACTS giving rise to this revision, in brief, are these. Respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1 as first holder and complainant No. 2 as joint holder had obtained 18 non-cumulative ''a'' series 1986 Bonds of Nayveli Lignite Corporation from respondent No. 2 for Rs. 18,000. Since the Bonds were to mature on 30. 9. 1993, the respondent No. 1 surrendered them in original duly discharged to enable respondent No. 2 to send the redemption amount thereof to her. Respondent No. 1 alleged that she did not receive the redemption amount upto October, 1993. She, therefore, sent a number of letters to respondent No. 2. Finally on 26. 1. 1994, the respondent No. 1 received a letter from respondent No. 2-Company that the redemption warrant had already been sent to her address on 23. 9. 1993. By the letter dated 10. 2. 1994, the respondent No. 2 further informed respondent No. 1 that the redemption warrant sent on 23. 9. 1993 had been encashed through the petitioner/opposite party No. 2-Canara Bank, Kalyani Devi Branch, Allahabad. Thereafter, on inquiry, it was found that the redemption warrant had been pilferred from the postal system and fraudulently encashed at the said branch of the Bank. It was stated that Bank had allowed opening of a new account impersonating respondent No. 1 and Ram Sahay and made payment of redemption warrant. FIR was lodged with the police by Ram Sahay and a copy thereof was also sent to respondent No. 2. Complaint was, thereafter, filed seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 3. In its written version, the respondent No. 2 alleged that its responsibility had ceased after the redemption warrant was sent by registered post through respondent No. 3. In its written version, petitioner Bank stated that the redemption warrant in question was deposited in the account and the money thereof was withdrawn. Opening of account and payment of redemption warrant were made in due course of business by the Bank in good faith. Superintendent of Post Office/respondent No. 3 in its written version alleged that registered letter No. 3970 from Anna Road Post Office, Madras was booked on 23. 9. 1993 and the same was received on 13. 10. 1993 in the Katcheri Post Office at Allahabad. The registered letter was delivered to the recipient. District Forum holding the petitioner Bank as deficient in service passed the order which was affirmed in the appeal filed by the Bank, by the State Commission. We have heard the parties learned Counsel.

Issue involved in this revision is squarely covered by the decision in Unit Trust of India v. Ravinder Kumar Shukla, Etc. Etc. , IV (2005) CPJ 10 (SC)=vii (2005) SLT 104=2005 CTJ 1189 (SC) (CP ). In this decision, in all 1600 unit holders had not received the cheques of the value of approximately Rs. 3 crores 35 lakh sent by Unit Trust of India. Cheques were intercepted, new accounts opened in Banks/post Offices in the names of payees of the cheques and thereafter monies leaving a minimum balance in the accounts were withdrawn. In respect of this colossal fraud, FIRs were lodged. As is manifest from para No. 7 of the decision, the question which arose for consideration before the Apex Court was: "whether the loss is to be borne by the unit holder payee and/or by the appellant? The answer to this question would depend on whether the Post Office was acting as an agent of the unit holder and/or the appellant. "

LAW culled out after considering the decisions referred to in the judgment and the submissions made, as reflected in para No. 10 is reproduced below: "thus the law is that in the absence of any contract or request from the payee, mere posting would not amount to payment. In cases where there is no contract or request, either express or implied, the Post Office would continue to act as the agent of the drawer. In that case the loss is of the drawer. "

Respondent No. 2 has not led any evidence that respondent No. 1 and complainant No. 2 had requested/consented to have the redemption warrant sent by post to them. Thus, in view of the ratio in said decision, the award can be made only against respondent No. 2 and not the petitioner Bank. It has been pointed out that the petitioner Bank had deposited Rs. 25,000 in the District Forum, Allahabad on 20. 5. 1996 which amount was withdrawn by respondent No. 1. In the facts and circumstances of case, it would be inappropriate at this stage to ask respondent No. 1 who has since expired and is represented by her two legal heirs in this revision, to refund the said amount to the Bank.

FOR the foregoing discussion, revision is allowed and the orders passed by Fora below insofar as they relate to the petitioner Bank are set aside. Respondent No. 2-Neyveli Lignite Corporation will pay the amount of Rs. 25,000 which covers the redemption amount of the Bonds along with interest thereof to the petitioner Bank within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which it will be open to the Bank to recover this amount from respondent No. 2. No order as to cost. Revision Petition allowed.