ICICI BANK LTD. vs RAVI KANT (THROUGH LRS) & ANR.

For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of one day, is hereby condoned.

Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") is to the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, "the State Commission") in FA No.1747/2011. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while confirming the order of the District Forum, only reduced the rate of interest from 12% p.a., to 9% p.a. and set aside the default interest of 18% p.a.

The facts material to the case are that the Complainant deposited an Account Payee Cheque with the first Opposite Party, i.e., State Bank of India (herein after referred to as "SBI"), bearing No.298731, dated 22.11.2006 for 1,37,500/- on 27.11.2006, drawn by the Second Opposite Party Bank, i.e., ICICI Bank (hereinafter referred to as "ICICI Bank"). After depositing of the cheque, the Complainant made numerous visits to SBI and enquired about the status of his cheque and was informed that the Cheque would be credited in a few days as the same was under process. On 20.01.2007, the Complainant was informed that his cheque was lost in transit. On hearing the same, as a matter of abundant precaution, the Complainant immediately approached ICICI Bank to "stop payment" of the aforesaid cheque. But to his surprise, the Complainant was informed by ICICI Bank vide letter dated 25.01.2007 that the aforesaid cheque has already been debited from the account of one Mr. Mahender Pahuja and was credited to some other person in Central Bank of India, Faridabad, on 30.11.2006. It is averred that both the Banks were guilty of deficiency in service as SBI informed that the cheque was lost in transit while ICICI Bank credited the cheque on 30.11.2006 in the account of some third-party. Hence the Complaint seeking direction to both the parties to refund 1,37,500/- which is the cheque amount with interest @ 18% p.a., together with compensation of 50,000/- and other costs.

The SBI filed its Written Version stating that a cheque for 1,37,500/- was deposited for collection and the same was drawn on ICICI Bank and that the said cheque was sent for collection to the Drawee Bank - i.e., ICICI Bank, as per the procedure, but they did not get any information regarding its credit in the account of the Complainant and SBI admitted vide letter dated 20.01.2007 that the cheque was lost in transit. Later, ICICI Bank confirmed that the said cheque was received by them and that it has been credited in an account with the Central Bank of India, Faridabad. It is averred that ICICI Bank should have credited the cheque in the account of the Complainant and that deficiency, if any, is to be attributed to the Second Opposite Party, i.e., ICICI Bank and not to them.

The Second Party, i.e., ICICI Bank failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.09.2011. The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced before it, allowed the Complaint and directed ICICI Bank to pay a sum of 1,37,500/- to the Complainant, i.e., Raj Kumari, Mother of Late Ravi Kant, with interest @ 12% p.a., from 30.11.2006, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 18% p.a. The ICICI Bank was directed to pay compensation of 20,000/- for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and SBI was directed to pay 10,000/- for their acts of omissions for not following the requisite procedure in enquiring about the fate of the cheque and for issuing wrong certificate.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner herein, i.e., the ICICI Bank preferred an Appeal before the State Commission which concurred with the finding of the District Forum with regard to deficiency of service but reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 9% and set aside the default interest @ 18% p.a. The Learned State Commission has observed as follows :- " Admittedly, the cheque in question deposited by the Complainant was encashed by some other person whereas the Opposite Party No.1 vide its letter dated 20.01.2007 certified that the cheque No.298731 in favour of Ravi Kant for Rs.1,37,500/- was lost in transit and no such amount had been credited to his account. Opposite party No.2 vide its letter dated 25.01.2007 has admitted that cheque No.298731 dated 22.11.2006 amounting to Rs.1,37,500/- in favour of Ravi Kant was debited from the account of Mahender Pahuja on 30.11.2006. The admission of Opposite Party No.2 (appellant) itself proved their deficiency in service on its part.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced on record, we are of the view that the District Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case has rightly accepted the complaint of the complainant. However, we feel that granting of interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant is on higher side and we reduce it from 12% p.a., to 9% p.a.".

Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that there was no deficiency of service on behalf of the Petitioner - Bank as they received the information from SBI about the loss of cheque only on 20.01.2007 and it was SBI which was negligent in misplacing the cheque and not informing the Petitioner or the Complainant on time. The Complainant was not a customer of the Petitioner Bank and, therefore, there is no privity of contract. The Learned Counsel argued that the customer was Mahender Pahuja, holding a Savings Bank Account and had issued the said cheque. It was also vehemently argued by the Learned Counsel that non-joinder of Central Bank as a necessary party was bad and, therefore, there was no clarification obtained as to who whose account the amount had been transferred.

Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent, i.e., SBI, submitted that both the fora below have rightly concluded that the deficiency of service was on behalf of the Petitioner and that merely because the cheque was lost in transit, no liability can be fastened against them.

The facts not in dispute are that the Complainant had deposited cheque bearing No.298731, drawn on the Petitioner Bank - ICICI, for 1,37,500/- on 27.11.2006 which was sent for collection by the SBI to ICICI. It is an admitted fact that the cheque in favour of Late Sh. Ravi Kant was lost in transit and, therefore, no such amount was credited to the beneficiary''s account. It is further admitted that vide letter dated 25.01.2007, the Petitioner Bank certified that the said cheque dated 22.11.2006 was debited from the account of Mahender Pahuja, on 30.11.2006. Both the fora below have concluded that there were no substantial reasons given by the Petitioner Bank to have credited the amount of the cheque in the account of some other person in Central Bank of India, Faridabad, on 30.11.2006. Both the fora below have concurrently found that the Petitioner Bank had failed to follow the RBI Guidelines to establish the identity of the customer. It is not understood as to why, the Petitioner Bank had credited the amount in the name of some other person without any instructions from the Holder of the Cheque, thereby creating financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Vijaya Bank Vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 13 SCC 775 while holding the banks guilty of deficiency of service and awarding the entire cheque amount, observed that the banks are liable to compensate a customer, whose money was wrongly paid to another person, without verifying the original signature of the Account-holder.

Even in the instant case, both the fora below have awarded the entire cheque amount which was wrongfully credited into the account of a third-party. Keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner Bank has not filed any Written Version before the District Forum; the concurrent finding of fact by the fora below, regarding the deficiency of service by the Petitioner Bank; that there are no reasons given as to how the cheque was credited to the account of one, Mr. Mahender Pahuja, without any instructions from the Complainant, on 30.11.2006; that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Central Bank of India and, therefore, any non-joinder of the Central Bank of India cannot be said to be bad, in the instant case.

For all the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact by both the fora below especially in view of the observation of Hon''ble Apex Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. Hence, this Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.