HARMOHINDER KAUR vs STATE BANK OF PATIALA

BEING aggrieved against the dismissal of complaint by the District Forum, the appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) has filed the present appeal.

THE admitted facts of the case are that the complainant handed over a cheque No. 757015 for Rs.45,000/-to the respondent/opposite party- State Bank of Patiala, Dharamshala Branch (hereinafter to be referred to as the State Bank of Patiala) on 27.2.1998 for collection from Canara Bank, Manimajra. THE amount of cheque has neither been credited to the account of the complainant nor has the cheque been returned. The stand taken by the State Bank of Patiala is that they have taken all possible steps for collection of the amount from the Canara Bank, Manimajra and that ultimately the cheque was dishonoured and lost in transit and as such it cannot be returned to the complainant. In substance, according to them, they have taken all possible steps for collection and there is no deficiency of service on their part and they cannot be fastened the liability on that account.

Mr. Rajesh Arora, learned Counsel for the State Bank of Patiala submits that the cheque no doubt was deposited on 27.2.1998, but the husband of the complainant was informed on 1.4.1998 that the cheque has been dishonoured and the complainant was informed on 23.6.1998. According to them, the husband of the complainant always accompanied her in the matter of transactions with the State Bank of Patiala and the information given to her husband should be considered as the information given to the complainant. This argument is not acceptable, firstly for the reason that there is no material on the record to show except bald assertion of the State Bank of Patiala that the husband of the complainant was orally informed. At any rate, even if we assume that the information has been given to the husband, that cannot be considered as information given to the wife i.e. the complainant. No doubt, the complainant was informed on 23.6.1998, but that information has been given at a very belated stage and the deficiency of service on the part of the State Bank of Patiala is writ large on the face of it. Had the information been given immediately about the dishonouring of the cheque, the complainant could have taken steps for realisation of the amount from the party who has given the cheque or for taking suitable action in the matter. The worst aspect of the matter is that the cheque so far has not been returned to the complainant although it might, have been dishonoured and that due to negligence on the part of the State Bank of Patiala, that has been misplaced. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that due to deficiency of service on the part of the State Bank of Patiala, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment, as not only the money has not been credited to the account of the complainant nor has the cheque which is alleged to have been dishonoured, been returned to the complainant and as such the complainant is clearly entitled to compensation. No norms can be fixed for determining as to how much compensation should be paid, but in our opinion, Rs. 3,000/- should be appropriate and just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

THIS case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Punjab State Commission in a case titled as Baldev Singh v. The Jalandhar Central Co-operative Bank Limited & Ors., III (1997) CPJ 528=1997 (2) CON.LT 576. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and that the respondent-State Bank of Patiala is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the complainant within three weeks. The cost of Rs. 500/- in the complaint is also awarded in favour of the complainant and against the respondents. Appeal allowed with costs.