P.N.B. FINANCE And INDUSTRIES LTD. vs Bank of India

IN this complaint the Complainant has clubbed two complaints regarding delay in encashment of bank drafts on 25th of March 1992 and 3rd of March, 1993 by the Bank of INdia.

THE facts as given in the complaint petition regarding the delay in the encashment of these bank drafts are briefly set out below : The Petitioner-Complainant received a bank draft dated 25th of March, 1992 for Rs. 22,86,527/- issued by the Bank of India, Stock Exchange Branch, Bombay which was presented to the RCC Branch of the Bank of India, New Delhi through its bankers United Bank of India on 28th of March, 1992. According to the Complainant this draft should have been cleared through the clearing in the normal course by 30th March, 1992 at the latest. In expectation of this credit it issued a cheque of Rs. 22.00 lacs to another party Stencil Apparels Pvt. Ltd. on 30th March, 1992 which was dishonoured because the draft dated 25th March, 1992 presented for clearance of 28th March, 1992 had been returned by the Respondent-Bank of India on the erroneous ground "Collect through PNB only". It was eventually honoured and encashed on 3rd April, 1992.

According to the Complainant-Petitioner the reasons for dishonouring the bank draft by Respondent Bank were untenable being against the banking practice. There was no requirement in the banking practice to collect the amount of the draft through PNB or through any particular Bank. The dishonouring of the draft had serious consequence for the company as it eventually led to the dishonouring of its cheque of Rs. 22.00 lacs issued to a third party and thus has lowered the prestige of the Company in the eyes of the public.

THE second complaint pertains to a earlier bank draft of 3rd March, 1992 for Rs. 18,95,000/- issued by the Stock Exchange Branch, Bank of India, Bombay, Respondent No. 2 and drawn on Respondent No. 1, RCC branch Bank of India, New Delhi. This draft was got issued by a third party Shri R.C. Goenka, Stock & Share Broker, Bombay in part payment of the amount due to the Complainant. THE Complainant-Petitioner did not receive this bank draft which was despatched to him by Shri R.C. Goenka and eventually a duplicate draft was issued by Respondent No. 2, Stock Exchange Branch of the Bank of India, Bombay on 16th of March, 1992 after completing certain formalities regarding "Stop Payment" instructions in Bank''s records apprising of the same to the concerned Bank Branches. A letter of indemnity and a letter declaring non-receipt of the lost bank draft etc. THE Complainant-Petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 15.00 lacs as compensation for loss of reputation including loss of interest on the delay in the encashment of the bank drafts of 3rd March, 1992 of Rs. 18.95 lacs and Rs. 5,000/- as interest on the dishonoured bank draft of Rs. 22,86,527/of the 25th of March, 1992. The Opposite Party Bank of India in its reply to the Complaint-Petition submitted that there was misjoinder of causes of action. The two bank drafts of 3 rd of March, 1992 and 25th of March, 1992 were totally distinct, independent and separate transactions and the claim for interest of Rs. 5,000/- on the dishonoured bank draft of Rs. 22,86,527/- of 25th March, 1992 was not within the jurisdiction of the National Commission. We find merit in this contention of the Respondent-Bank and at the hearing, the Counsel for the Complainant Petitioner conceded and said that he would approach the appropriate Forum with him complaint in regard to the delay in encashment of the bank draft of 25th of March, 1992.

AS regards the bank draft of 3rd March, 1992, the Respondent in his reply has pointed out that the draft of Rs. 18.95 lacs was purchased by Shri R.C. Goenka directly from Respondent No. 2 (Stock Exchange Branch, Bank of India, Bombay) and the same was lost in transmission from Mr. Goenka to the Complainant Petitioner. Consequently, the complainant-Petitioner has no locus standi arising from the delay in the issue of a duplicate bank draft by the Respondent Bank of India, according to the Respondent-Bank of India it was Shri Goenka who had hired services of Respondent No. 2 and it was he who had applied for the issue of a duplicate bank draft after the original was misplaced or lost. Consequently, according to the Respondent there was no deficiency of service by the Respondents-Bank of India vis-a-vis the Petitioner. We find merit in the contention of the Respondent. The complainant Petitioner was to get payment of certain amount from Shri Goenka. Stock and Share Broker, Bombay and if the bank draft was lost in transmission from Shri Goenka to the Complainant, the Respondent-Bank is not liable. Again if the Bank insisted upon certain formalities to be completed to guard against the encashment of the first lost bank draft before issuing duplicate bank draft to Shri Goenka this was again a transaction between Shri Goenka and the Respondent-Bank and there is no question of any relationship between the banker and the client in this transaction between the Respondent-Bank of India and the Complainant-Petitioner PNB Finance & Industries Ltd. Consequently, complaint relating to the delay in the encashment of bank draft of 3rd March, 1992 is dismissed inasmuch as no deficiency of service has been established on the part of the Respondent-Bank towards the Complainant-Petitioner. Before we part with this order we would, however, like to point out that we are unable to understand why the bankers of the Complainant-Petitioner-United-Bank of India did not point out at the clearing that the bank draft was being returned with erroneous objection "Collect through PNB only". It was equally the duty of the United Bank of India to immediately apprise its client PNB Finance & Industries Ltd. that the bank draft had been returned with erroneous objection. Further, it is not clear whether their bankers United Bank of India were justified in dishonouring the cheque for Rs. 22.00 lacs issued in favour of Stencil Apparels Pvt. Ltd. dated the 30th of March, 1992 dishonoured on 2nd April, 1992 when their Bankers United Bank of India were aware that "Effects (Rs. 22,86,527) not cleared, please present again". Anyhow we are not concerned with these matters as none of the complaints is maintainable before this Commission either on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction or because no deficiency in service has been established. The complaint is therefore, dismissed. There in no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.