INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI MAHILA NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT vs ANURAG AGRAWAL

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 30.1.2002 in Complaint No. 314/01 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called District Forum for short) directing the appellant Bank to pay to the complainant/respondent Rs. 12,857/- with interest and cost of the complaint.

THE complainant/respondent has advertisement business at Raipur and had in that connection received a cheque dated 23.12.2000 from Update Advertisement and Marketing for a sum of Rs. 12,857/- drawn on City Bank. It is also not in dispute that the said cheque was deposited by the complainant/respondent for being credited in his Current Account No. 52 on 26.12.2000. However the amount of the said cheque was not credited in the said account. The complainant feeling aggrieved due to non collection of the amount of the cheque as aforesaid, filed the complaint before the District Forum. It was averred that the complainant had approached the appellant Bank several times, making inquiries about the collection of the cheque and credit of the amount thereof in his account, but he was informed that the said cheque was sent for collection to City Bank, Branch Baroda from where the amount has not been received and that the amount of cheque would be credited in his account as soon as it is received by the appellant Bank. The complainant prayed that the appellant Bank be directed to pay amount of cheque with interest to the complainant.

The opposite party/appellant Bank resisted the complaint. It was averred that the said cheque was sent by courier, Dolphin Courier Service to City Bank Branch Baroda for collection. However, the City Bank, Baroda, did not remit the amount to the opposite party/appellant Bank, despite the appellant Bank presuming the matter requesting and reminding the City Bank, Branch Baroda to remit the amount to the appellant Bank. It was averred that since the amount of the said cheque was not received by the appellant after collection from City Bank, the same could be credited to the complainant''s account. It was averred that there was no deficiency in service by the appellant Bank.

THE District Forum held that since the cheque was handed over by the complainant to the appellant Bank, it was obligatory for it to credit the amount of the said cheque in the account of the complainant as was directed by him. Since, that was not done by the appellant Bank, there was deficiency in service on its part. Accordingly the District Forum directed the appellant Bank to pay Rs. 12,857/- being the amount of cheque with interest thereon to the complainant. The learned Counsel for the parties were heard and the record is perused.

AS noticed earlier, there is no dispute that the complainant had deposited cheque for Rs. 12,857/- with the appellant Bank with the direction that the same be credited in his current account (sic.). The amount of the cheque, however, has not been credited in the said account of the complainant. The defence of the appellant Bank is that it had sent the cheque for collection to City Bank Branch Baroda but since the amount thereof was not received from the City Bank, despite efforts and repeated requests by the appellant Bank to the said City Bank Baroda, hence it could not be credited to the complainant''s account. It was averred that there was no deficiency in service by the appellant Bank. It is clear that the appellant Bank having failed to credit the amount of cheque in the account of the complainant/respondent. It could not avoid its liability merely because it had sent the cheque for collection through courier service and amount thereof was not received by the appellant from the drawee Bank. There is no material on record to show as to whether the cheque was received at City Bank, Branch Baroda. There is also no material on record as to whether the City Bank, Branch Baroda refused or declined to remit the amount despite having received the cheque, and if so, for what reasons? The only averment in this regard of the appellant Bank is that the amount was not received from the City Bank Branch Baroda. In any case the complainant was entitled to receive the amount from the appellant having deposited the cheque with it. Even if the cheque was lost in transit by the Courier Service, still the responsibility thereof would be on the appellant Bank because the Courier Service was the agent of the appellant Bank and the complainant could not be made to suffer for some possible default on the part of the Courier Service. Reference in the above context may be made to the observations of Kerala State Commission in Branch Manager, South Malabar Gramin Bank v. C.I. Rasheed, I (2000) CPJ 144, wherein the cheques could not be collected by the Bank. The contention of the Bank that they were not liable as they had taken all necessary steps for collection of cheque was not accepted and it was held that the appellant Bank did not discharge this duty properly. It may also be noticed that in State Bank of India v. M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Udyog, Ambala, 1993 (2) CON.LT 19 (NC). It was observed that safe collection of cheques entrusted to Bank by its customer is the contractual obligation of the Bank. If the Bank fails to collect the amount of the cheque and takes the plea that such cheques were lost in transit, it is absolved of its obligation to reimburse the consumer for the loss caused to him by non-collection of the amount of the cheques. Rajasthan State Commission in Udaipur Central Co-operative Bank v. Anurag Nagar, I (2004) CPJ 496, has also held so. Similar view was taken by the State Commission of Union Territory of Chandigarh in Inder Mohan Rishi v. Assistant General Manager, Orient Bank of Commerce and Another, II (2002) CPJ 106.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant Bank has relied upon the decision of National Commission in M/s. Sky Pak Couriers (P) Ltd., v. M/s. Loyal Machine Works Ltd., 1995 (3) 585 (NC). In that case consignment of demand draft was handed over to the courier service/appellant and the consignment was lost in transit. It was held therein that the State Commission was not justified in awarding compensation against the courier service. It was further held that the duplicate drafts could be obtained from the company which had issued the drafts. THE award of the State Commission was accordingly reduced. Obviously, the facts of the said case are entirely different, as the complaint in that case was against the courier service for the loss of Bank Drafts sent through it. However, in the present case the complainant had deposited the cheque with the appellant Bank to be credited in his account. Hence the appellant''s case does not get any support from the aforesaid decision.

THE learned Counsel for appellant also relied upon the order of the Jammu and Kashmir State Commission in Tufail Ahmed Shah v. J&K Bank, III (2003) CPJ 531. In the said case the complaint was that the respondent Bank had failed to collect the amount of cheques deposited with it. It was observed in that case that service charges were not realised from the complainant by the Bank. Moreover, there was an agreement between the complainant and the Bank that the cheques will be sent for collection on the risk and responsibility of the complainant and there was no lack of care and caution on the part of Bank. THErefore, State Commission held that there was no deficiency in service by the Bank. However, there is no allegation in the present case that there was any agreement between the parties, that the cheques would be sent for collection on the risk and responsibility of the complainant. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the appellant Bank was liable to make good the loss caused to the complainant due to non-collection and crediting the amount of the cheque in his account. The impugned order of the District Forum, directing the appellant to pay the amount of the cheque to the complainant with interest thereon, therefore, appears to be justified and calls for no interference. This appeal has no substance, it is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.