COM.RAKESH SHARMA vs Punjab National Bank

MR. Rakesh Sharma, complainant, had to pay Rs. 80,350/- to Air Force Naval Housing Board in May, 1991. He had Saving Bank Account with Moti Bagh Branch of Punjab National Bank (PNB) No. 5647. He issued two cheques, the first cheque was No. 845636 dated 10.5.1991 for Rs. 60,350/- in favour of AFNHB and the second cheque was number 845637 dated 13.5.1991 for Rs. 20,000/-. In order to make the necessary balance available, he deposited two cheques No. 719442, drawn on Nanakpura Branch of PNB for Rs. 10,000/- and another cheque No. 371558 drawn on Bank of India, Parliament Street for Rs. 6,000/-. Both these cheques were deposited on Sunday 12th May, 1991 and the Moti Bagh Branch sent the cheque drawn on Bank of India on the next working day i.e. Monday the 13th May, 1991. The cheque was cleared and credited to the account of the complainant on 15.5.1991. The cheque drawn on Nanakpura Branch could not be sent on Monday as the next following day, namely Tuesday, the 14th May, 1991 was a weekly off day both for Nanakpura Branch of PNB as well as Moti Bagh Branch of the said Bank. The said cheque presented only on Wednesday, 15.5.1991 and it was not cleared until 16.5.1991.In the meanwhile, both the cheques issued in favour of AFNHB were presented on 15.5.1991. The Bank decided to make payment and encash the smaller of the two cheques, namely for Rs. 20,000/- and referred the other cheque to the drawer on the ground of ''insufficient funds''. The complainant had to pay penalty of Rs. 1,508.75 for failure to make the payment by the prescribed date. He also suffered defamation and humiliation for having given a cheque which was dishonored. The aforesaid facts, according to the complainant constituted deficiency in service and he accordingly filed a complaint before the District Forum-II claiming compensation. The plea of the Bank was that there was no deficiency in service as Tuesday, the 14th May, 1991 were weekly off days both for the Moti Bagh Branch as well as the Nanak Pura Branch. The cheque could not be sent for clearance on Monday, as the next following day was closed day and it was sent for clearance on the next working day that is 15th and on 15th the balance available in the account of the complainant could not meet the amount of both the cheques. The Bank, therefore, encashed one of the cheques and returned the other cheque for want of sufficient funds.

ON a consideration of the material before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this Appeal. We have heard the appellant who argued in person and Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, authorised representative of the respondent and have carefully gone through the records.

The first question to be decided is regarding application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The decision of the District Forum is dated 24.3.1993 and the present appeal was filed on 22.8.1996 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. In the application as well as in the grounds of appeal it has been stated that certified copy of the order passed by the District Forum was not received by the complainant. He made an application and secured a duplicate certified copy which was made available on 2.8.1996 and the present appeal was filed within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy. The certified copy of the impugned order appears to have been verified as true copy by the official of the District Forum only on 12.10.1995. The appellant also relies on letter dated 5th July, 1995 in which the District Forum had been requested to send copy of the judgment at complainant''s permanent address, namely c/o Shri Ravinder Sharma, 12, Satya Niketan opposite S.V. College, New Delhi. Instead of sending the certified copy at the said address the same appears to have been sent at the old address of the complainant at Goa, from where it was redirected and was received by the complainant only on 2.8.1996.This is clear from the photocopy of the address appearing on the envelope which was redirected from old address to the new address of the appellant. It is settled law that limitation for purposes of appeal starts running from the date of communication of the certified copy of the order. Please see Haryana Housing Board v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and Others, III 1995 CPJ 28 (SC). For the foregoing reasons, the appeal has been filed in time.

THIS brings us to a consideration of the merits of the appeal. The points to be considered are: (a) Whether the PNB, Moti Bagh was deficient in service by not sending the cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to Nanakpura Branch on Monday the 13th May, 1991 on the ground that Tuesday, the 14th May, 1991 was off day for the drawee branch, (b) whether the Bank was deficient in service in sending the cheque unencashed on the ground of insufficient funds rather than on the ground that the effects were not clear and the payee should present the cheque again, (c) whether the Bank was bound to honour the bigger cheque in preference to the smaller cheque; the balance standing to the credit of the complainant being insufficient to meet both the cheques. There is no dispute that Banks have been observing one weekly off day; such day is fixed well in advance and is known to all customers dealing with a particular Branch. We were informed that particular weekly off day is duly printed on the cheque books. The complainant as a customer of the Bank must have known that Tuesday was being observed as weekly off day both by the Moti Bagh Branch as well as Nanakpura Branch of PNB. With this knowledge he should have been prepared that the cheque presented on Sunday, the 12th May, would.not be sent to the Branch on Monday as the next following day was an off day. On the next working day, 15th May, 1991 the cheque was sent and it was cleared on 16th May, 1991. From these facts, it is clear that on 15.5.1991, the balance in the account of the complainant could not meet both the cheques and it was, therefore, necessary to honour one cheque and return the other for want of funds. The question as to which of the two cheques should have been encashed, depended on the wisdom and discretion of the official dealing with it. Admittedly no specific instructions had been given by the complainant as to which of the two cheques should be given preference in case it became necessary to honour one cheque and return the other. We have not been referred to any guidelines of Banking practice followed in this behalf. The decision to honour one of the two cheques does not appear to have been taken either due to ill-will or sheer negligence. In the absence of any breach of any duty, there is no deficiency in service.

WE are informed that according to the practice being followed by Bank, the cheques which are sent for collection are entered and credited to the account to which they relate on the next following day and cheques which are returned unpaid are debited to the account on the third day. The ground of "effects not clear" is written in the case of cheques which are credited but the returning advice is awaited for the next following day. In the facts of the present case, the cheque in question was sent for collection on 15.5.1991 and credit entry was made on 16.5.1991. There was thus no credit entry available regarding that cheque on 15.5.1991 and the ground of "effects not clear" was not available. That ground became available only on 16.5.1991 but the cheque had been returned on the ground of "refer to drawer" on 15th May, 1991. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. We make no order as to cost. A copy of this order be communicated to both parties as well as District Forum-II. Appeal dismissed.