NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs RAJINDER ALIAS NARINDER KUMAR

-THIS revision by opposite party No. 1 is directed against the order dated 17. 11. 1999 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh disposing of appeal against the order dated 10. 9. 1999 of a District Forum only reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 12% p. a. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to pay credit amount of Rs. 1,47,500 along with interest @ 18% p. a. w. e. f. 1. 5. 1997 in the account of respondent No. 1.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Respondent No. 1/complainant was having account bearing No. 25202 with branch at Hansi of the petitioner opposite party No. 1 Bank. On 10. 4. 1997, respondent No. 1 deposited account payee cheque No. 807777 of Rs. 1,47,500 drawn on Matunga Bazar Branch at Mumbai of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 Bank for collection in the said account. On account of cheque not being credited the respondent No. 1 made applications to the petitioner Bank on 8. 8. 1997, 2. 9. 1997 and 15. 10. 1997. On getting no response, complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of petitioner and respondent No. 2 Bank was filed by respondent No. 1 which was contested by filing written versions. Handing over of the cheque of Rs. 1,47,500 for collection on 10. 4. 1997 by respondent No. 1 was not denied. Main defence taken in para No. 2 of the written version on merit by the petitioner was that the cheque in question was sent on 10. 4. 1997 itself by the petitioner to its Service Branch at Mumbai through Madhur Courier Service, Hansi vide receipt No. 627 dated 10. 4. 1997. Service Branch of the petitioner at Mumbai sent the cheque to respondent No. 2 for collection. Credit of the amount of cheque could be given only after receipt of credit issued from respondent No. 2 or the Service Branch of petitioner at Mumbai. Petitioner had been vigorously taking the matter with Service Branch as also respondent No. 2. By letter No. 5039/mb-2/97-98 dated 20. 2. 1998 addressed to the Service Branch the respondent No. 2 Bank has informed that the cheque in question seems to have not been received by it and requested the Service Branch to advise the petitioner to contact the party and arrange to submit certain details to verify their record. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 did not have any cause of action against the petitioner Bank. Submission advanced by Mr. R. K. Dikshit for petitioner was that the petitioner Bank had sent the cheque in question through courier on 10. 4. 1997 itself to its Service Branch at Mumbai who in turn sent it to respondent No. 2 for collection and as the cheque was lost by respondent No. 2 the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of the amount thereof. Submission is, however, without any merit. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that the cheque in question was forwarded by its Service Branch at Mumbai to respondent No. 2. In absence of such evidence and the stand taken by respondent No. 2 in aforesaid letter dated 20. 2. 1998, the petitioner cannot shift liability for loss of cheque and payment of the amount thereof on respondent No. 2. Since the cheque was handed over for collection by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner Bank it cannot evade liability for payment thereof with interest. To be only noted that respondent No. 1 was never informed in writing of the loss of cheque by the petitioner Bank.

This brings us to the submissions advanced by Mr. Ajant Kumar for respondent No. 2 Bank. It was urged by him that liability to pay the awarded amount was solely that of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the decisions particularly in Brijnandan Prasad Singh v. Satya Narain Pd. Jain and Anr. , AIR 1972 Patna 219 and Jia Lal Kak v. Mohan Lal Kak, AIR 1960 Jammu and Kashmir 22. It is pertinent to mention that against the order of State Commission the respondent No. 2 had filed R. P. No. 2317/2003 which was dismissed as being barred by time by the order dated 7. 8. 2003. There cannot be any quarrel with regard to legal proposition enunciated in both the said decisions but in view of dismissal of said R. P. No. 2317/2003 the respondent No. 2 Bank is now estopped from challenging the correctness of the impugned order in present revision.

FOR the foregoing discussion, revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000 to respondent No. 1. Revision Petition dismissed.