ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE vs BRUNO KNITWEARS

THIS appeal is by Oriental Bank of Commerce, the opposite party wherein challenge is to order of District Forum, Ludhiana dated November 13, 1996, whereby the appellant was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 19,871.20 (amount of the cheque) with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon w.e.f. June 5, 1995, till payment to the complainant M/s. Bruno Knitwears, Ludhiana.

THE complainant submitted a cheque to the Bank for collection. Six months from the date of the cheque were to expire on June 11,1995. THE cheque was given to the Bank on June 5,1995. On June 17,1995, it was returned to the complainant uncashed. After serving a legal notice, the complainant approached the District Forum for refund of the amount of the cheque alongwith compensation on account of damages suffered and harassment caused. As per allegations, the cheque was to be sent to Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh whereas it was sent to Punjab National Bank, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana on June 5, 1995 and it was returned by the aforesaid Bank of June 6,1995 and the opposite party-Bank kept the cheque upto June 17, 1995 when it was handed over to the complainant. This was deficiency in rendering service and this negligent act caused loss of the amount of the cheque to the complainant. Controverting the allegations of the complainant, the Bank submitted its version that prior to June 5,1995, the same cheque was presented for collection but was dishonoured and in this process 21 days time was taken. Subsequently when the cheque was handed over on June 5,1995, the next day, it was returned to the complainant as there was no time to send the cheque to Chandigarh for collection. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that it cannot be held in the circumstances of the case that the complainant suffered loss of the amount of the cheque as the complainant could recover the same from the drawer of the cheque the amount. There is force in this contention. Even if finding is recorded that the appellant-Bank rendered deficient service in keeping the cheque upto the period of its expiry of six months, it cannot be said that the complainant suffered loss to the extent of the amount of the cheque. The complainant had an independent remedy to claim the amount of the cheque from its drawer. By expiry of period of the cheque, only remedy is lost not the right. Learned Counsel for the complainant referred to the decision of this Commission in M/s. Pearl Exports and Imports through its partner Varun Behal v. New Bank of India & Ors., 1995 (2) CPR 111. On going through the facts of that case, we find that the ratio therein cannot be applied to the case in hand. That was a case where the Bank was deficient in rendering service in not negotiating the documents through a particular Bank and the complainant was held entitled to compensation for the loss suffered, which was value of the goods. The other decision relied upon is of the UT State Commission, Chandigarh in The Manager, State Bank of India v. Samrat Forgings Ltd., III (1996) CPJ 10=1996 (2) CPC 37. That was a case where proceeds of the cheque were wrongly sent to another Bank and it took about three and a half months in crediting the amount of the cheque. The order of allowing interest @ 18% p.a. as compensation was upheld by the State Commission. In view of the discussion as referred to above, order of the District Forum for refund of the amount of the cheque cannot be sustained. However, with regard to the payment of interest @ 18% p.a. as compensation for deficiency in rendering service is fully justified.

Learned Counsel for the appellant wanted to challenge the finding of the District Forum regarding the date of return of the cheque. Reference was made to Ex. R1, a register containing endorsement of return of the cheque in dispute to the complainant which is dated June 6,1995. However, this entry does not bear signatures of any representative of the complainant. Orally, it was argued that since the complainant was maintaining account in the Bank, their representative used to visit the Bank almost daily and in routine the cheque was returned. This stand cannot be accepted. The complaint was filed after serving a legal notice wherein exact date of return of the cheque as June 17,1995 was mentioned. A reply to the notice was sent wherein there was no specific denial in this respect. It is taken that the cheque was returned on June 17,1995. Thus, the complainant would be entitled to interest on the amount of the cheque i.e. Rs. 19,871.20 @ 18% p.a. from June 5,1995 to June 17,1995. Afterwards, it was for him to claim the amount from the drawer of the cheque directly.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District FORum is modified. The appellant-Bank is directed to pay interest only @ 18% p.a. on the amount of the cheque for the period mentioned above There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.