K.V. Sheeba vs Canara Bank and Ors.

BEING aggrieved by order dated 18.10.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ''State Commission'') petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. Brief facts are that, petitioner''s husband who was working in Mexico in America has sent two cheques of Canara Bank, Payyannur for Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 25,000 respectively, drawn in favour of the petitioner. The said cheques were presented by somebody else before the respondent -opposite party. One of the cheques for Rs. 2 lakh, was encashed and the other one was not paid. It is alleged that respondent did not take proper care and caution hi disbursing the cheque amounts. Alleging deficiency in service, petitioner filed a complaint praying that respondents pay the cheque amount of Rs. 2 lakh with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 and cost of Rs. 5,000.

RESPONDENTS in their written version pleaded that two cheques were presented at the counter of the respondent''s bank on 10.2.2004, drawn in favour of Sheeba K.V. -Petitioner. For cheque of Rs. 2 lakh, token No. 24 was given and for other cheque token No. 78 was given. It was stated that the cheques were bearer cheques and as per usual practice, the cheques were liable to be paid. It was further stated that though cheque for Rs. 2 lakh was disbursed to the bearer, who was a lady, the amount for the other cheque was not received during the working hours. Hence, they contacted the petitioner over phone and came to know that the cheques were produced by somebody else. Since the cheque for Rs. 2 lakh was presented by a lady, there was no occasion to suspect the genuineness of the presentation of the cheque and it was only due to the fact that the second cheque was presented by a man that they tried to obtain the signature of the bearer and as the person was missing from the counter, the amount was not paid. Thus, respondents had acted only according to the banking procedure. There was no deficiency in service. Respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (for short, ''District Forum''), vide its order dated 18.5.2009, allowed the complaint of the petitioner.

BEING aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission which accepted their appeal, vide the impugned order.

HENCE , this revision petition. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

IT has been contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that respondents have violated the statutory obligation to make the payment and have acted in a negligent manner thereby causing monetary loss to the petitioner. It was for the respondents to have verified as to whether the person presenting the cheque was actually entitled to receive the same or not. In support, learned Counsel relied upon following judgments: 1. Abdul Razak and Another v. South Indian Bank Ltd., III : (2003) CPJ 20 (NC);

Canara Bank v. Canara Sales Corporation and Others, : (1987) 2 SCC 666;

N. Venkanna v. Andhra Bank, I, (2006) CPJ 132 (SC); and

Unit Trust of India v. Kelki Devi and Others; II : (2004) CPJ 60 (NC) : Revision Petition No. 1828 of 2001, decided on 9.12.2003 by this Commission.

STATE Commission in its order observed: As per Section 85 of the Negotiable Instrument Act where a cheque payable to order purports to be endorsed by or on behalf of the payee the drawee is discharged by payment in due course and also where a cheque is originally expressed to be payable to bearer, the drawee is discharged by payment in due course to the bearer thereof. It is also his case that if the cheques were either crossed or a/c payee cheques, the problem would not have been there. We find force in the said arguments for the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is to be found that the 2 cheques were neither crossed nor did they have the endorsement a/c payee which would have enabled the bank to pay the money through an account holder only and if any misappropriation had occurred they could have easily identified the person who received the payment. In the instant case, the cheques were bearer cheques and we do not find any deficiency in service or collusion on the side of the opposite parties in disbursing the cheque amount for Rs. 2 lakh. It is also seen that since there were 3 signatures in the reverse of cheque for Rs. 25,000 the bank officials hesitated to pay the amount and taking caution, they tried to obtain the signature of the person who presented the cheque and it was seeing that the person was missing from the counter that they contacted the complainant. It is also to be found that if the officials had colluded with the persons who presented the cheques, both cheques could have been encashed as argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances, we find that the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside.

It is an admitted case that cheques in question was drawn in favour of the "Petitioner or Bearer". Since, the bearer of cheque has presented the same for encashment, there was no need for further verifying the antecedents of the bearer.

AS the bearer cheque on behalf of the petitioner was presented before the respondent bank, it was fully justified in making the payment against it. As such, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the respondents. None of the judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

WE do not find any reason to disagree with the findings given by State Commission. Under these circumstances, present revision petition is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.