INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK vs DURGESH KHULLER

THIS appeal has been filed by the Indian Overseas Bank, challenging order dated February 27, 1996 passed by the District Forum, Ropar allowing the complaint filed by Durgesh Khuller and directing the opposite party-appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation along with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation.

THE appellant Indian Overseas Bank is having its Extension Counter at Mohali, where the complainant Durgesh Khuller was maintaining his Saving Bank Account. THE complainant submitted a cheque for Rs. 13,122/- for realisation and credit of the amount in his account with the Bank. THE Bank delayed clearance of the cheque by about 9 days and in the meantime, cheque issued by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 22,836/- along with application for allotment of a plot submitted with the Canara Bank, Chandigarh, was dishonoured by the appellant Bank on October 14, 1992. In this manner, the complainant''s application for allotment of the plot was summarily rejected. He suffered loss and claimed a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs with interest against the appellant-Bank on account of deficiency in rendering service in the matter of getting clearance of his cheque and crediting its amount of Rs. 13,122/- in his Saving Bank Account. THE claim was contested by the appellantBank, taking different pleas. THE claim was stated to be time-barred and it was denied that there was any deficiency in the matter of rendering service. Both the parties produced affidavits in support of their allegations. THE complainant along with his affidavit also produced certain documents relating to the subsequent cheque, which was dishonoured. Canara Bank was also impleaded as a party and in its reply stated that the cheque presented by the complainant was dishonoured by Indian Overseas Bank on account of insufficient funds. This case also has some history. Initially, the complaint was filed before the State Commission, UT, Chandigarh. It was returned and filed in the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. It was ordered to be returned to be filed in the District Forum, Ropar and ultimately it was done. In appeal, the only question stressed by learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank is that there was no deficiency in rendering service. The cheque was presented for clearance. The amount of the cheque on realisation was deposited in the Saving Bank Account of the complainant on October 15,1992. Whereas, the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured on October 14, 1992 as admittedly on that day, sufficient amount did not stand to the credit of the complainant that the cheque could be cleared.

As far as certain facts are concerned, there is no dispute, such as deposit of the cheque for clearance with the Bank on September 29, 1992, submission of application for allotment of a plot along with cheque to the Canara Bank and that cheque having been dishonoured by the appellant-Bank on October 14, 1992. The only dispute that survives is about the deficiency in the matter of realisation of the amount of the cheque of Rs. 13,122/- by the appellant-Bank. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant-Bank have not appealed and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

THE case of the appellant as pleaded in the written statement as well as supported by an affidavit of its Manager is that though the cheque was deposited with the appellant-Bank on September 29,1992, it was returned to the Bank on October 5,1992 on technical grounds at the time of clearance. It was re-presented on October 9, 1992. It was cleared on October 14,1992 and the amount was credited to the account of the complainant on October 15,1992. THE stand taken up by the complainant in the replication filed was that factually, the cheque was cleared on October 9, 1992 vide Memo No. 068227 by drawee Bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. THE material record as to when the aforesaid cheque was cleared by the Punjab National Bank was with the appellant-Bank i.e. the advice of clearance. Surprisingly, the appellant-Bank felt satisfied by only filing an affidavit of its Manager and kept back the documentary evidence in its possession, which could be conclusive evidence as to when the cheque was factually cleared by the Punjab National Bank. An adverse inference in the circumstances stated above can legitimately be drawn against the appellant-Bank that if the document in its possession had been produced, the same would have gone against the appellant. The case can be viewed from another angle. The appellant-Bank''s Extension Counter is situated at Mohali, which is hardly 10 k.ms. from Chandigarh. In normal course, a cheque submitted for clearance at Mohali would not have taken more than a week. The complainant after expiry of about a week''s time, issued the cheque for allotment of a plot thinking that the amount of the cheque submitted to the appellant must have been credited since the same was not returned nor any intimation in that respect was sent by the Bank. The stand of the appellant-Ban that the cheque was returned by the clearing house on technical grounds on October 5,1992 was not brought to the notice of the complainant. If it has been done, it would have put the complainant to caution before issuing the second cheque from his account. On all these matters, the appellant-Bank was deficient in rendering service to the complainant. The District Forum thus rightly held so.

IN the matter of assessment of compensation in such like matter, some rough estimate has to be made. Obviously, the complainant''s application for allotment of plot stood rejected as the cheque accompanying it was not honoured by the Bank. Thus, he was deprived of the chance of participating in the draw of lots for allotment of the plot. It is speculative in the sense that he may have won the draw or not. If he had won the draw, the plot would have brought him income. IN that sense, it is speculative loss. The complainant also suffered mental harassment when the cheque issued by him on the appellant-Bank stood dishonoured and on that account also only rough estimate for compensation could be made by the Forum. The grant of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on such account is not considered excessive in any manner to call for interference in appeal. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed. Order of the District Forum is affirmed. The appellant will pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.