Punjab and Sind Bank vs MANPREET SINGH SOOD

THE question that arises in this appeal is with regard to the dishonouring of the cheque of the complainant by the Punjab & Sindh Bank, Jalandhar even though there was a balance in his account No. SB-947 with the Bank. It is not disputed that the complainant had a balance of Rs. 16,844.84 in his account and the cheque issued by him for the payment to the Jalandhar Gymkhana Club was for Rs. 5,576/-. THE complainant claimed Rs. 95,000/- as compensation for the illegal act of the Bank which had caused him mental strees and strain. THE objection raised by the Bank was that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short ''the Act) on merits, it was pleaded that the cheque was presented in the Bank and the dealing official being an old man had misread the figures of the amount outstanding in the account of the complainant and the mistake occurred was due to rush of work.

THE District Forum repelled the contentions of the Bank and held that the complaint was maintainable and the complainant was placed in an embarrassing position by the Bank by illegally dishonouring his cheque for which he must have suffered mental agony and also in reputation and accordingly awarded him Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs payable by the Bank within a month of the receipt of the order. Hence, this appeal. This appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 15 of the Act. The order of the District Forum was pronounced in open Court on 3rd February, 1994. It is manifest from the order that the appellant-Bank was represented therein by its Counsel. The complaint was duly contested on behalf of appellant-Bank both on the issues of fact and la w as is evident from the order itself and the judgment was pronounced on the aforementioned date. However, the present appeal was preferred on 11.4.1994 beyond the strictly prescribed period of 30 days under Section 15 of the Act. Shri K.S. Chhabra, learned Counsel for the appellant took up the plea that the terminus for determining the period of 30 days aforementioned has to begin only from the date of the receipt of the order by the appellant. It was submitted that the copy of the order was received by the appellant on 18.3.1994 and that being so, the present appeal was clearly within limitation. We regret our inability to accept this contention of the learned Counsel. The impugned order was passed on 3.2 1994 in the presence of the parties'' Counsel and the same was forwarded by the Superintendent of the Forum to the parties concerned for information on 4.2.1994. In the circumstances, the limitation would run from the date of the announcement of the order.

Rule 8(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Rules mandates that whenever a memorandum of appeal is presented beyond the strictly prescribed period of limitation under Section 15 of the Act, it must be accompanied by an application precisely setting out the ground on which the applicant relies as sufficient cause for condonation. The same must in term be supported by an affidavit. Neither of these mandatory requirements has been complied with. This appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and no sufficient cause for condonation has been pleaded, far from being established. Consequently, this appeal must be held to be barred by time.

THE appellant has raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Forum, on the ground that the savings bank accounts are maintained by it free of charge and the cheque facility is also provided by it free of charge and as such by virtue of exception carried out in definition of ''service'' in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act dishonouring of cheque by the Bank would not be cognizable by a Forum as complaint''. THE objection was also raised before the Forum and it was turned down by it. THE matter is not res Integra In case, P. Nag Bhushan Rao v. Union Bank of India, I (1991) CPJ 352 , an objection was taken that the ''consumer'' was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as the particular banking services were not hired for consideration. THE Andhra Pradesh State Commission held that the difference in the borrowing and lending rates of interest by a Bank is the consideration for which the Bank renders service. In the case before us, the objection is slightly different. It is based on the definition of service in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Any service, which is rendered free of charge has been specifically excluded from the definition of service by the aforesaid provision. THE question be fire us, therefore, is, whether the cheque facility provided by the Bank in Saving Bank Accounts is a service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. THE answer to the question would depend on whether the cheque facility is given free of charge. A5 noted by Andhra Pradesh State Commission in P. Nag Bhushan Rao''s case (supra), any Bank pays lesser rate of interest to its depositors than the rates of interest it: charges from its borrowers. Difference in the lending and borrowing rates of interest is the consideration for rendering different services to the depositors. In our opinion, even the difference in borrowing and lending rates is not necessary for holding that services rendered by a Bank to its depositors are rendered free of charge. THE depositor allows the Bank to use his funds and puts them at the disposal of the Bank. He does not do so only for safe custody of funds or for earning the normal rate of interest. THE depositor also expects and is in fact assured of certain customer services which are granted by the Banks by way of business practice or because of statutory provisions over and above the interest on deposit. If the Bank provides cheque facility on Saving Bank Accounts as a general practice without charging the customer separately for it, it cannot be said that the facility is provided free of charge. THE depositor takes into account the facility including cheque book facility provided by the Bank before opening an account. In many cases, the facilities may attract the depositors more than the rate of interest. THErefore, it can be concluded that the cheque book facility in a Savings Bank Account is obtained by the depositor in consideration of his putting his funds at the disposal of the Bank and is not given to him free of charge of without consideration. THE objection has no force and has been rightly rejected by the District Forum. The next question is as to whether appellant can be held for dishonouring the cheque issued by the complainant-respondent. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had sufficient funds in his account and the cheque issued by him was dishonoured by the appellant on the ground that the dealing official being an old man had misread the figures of the amount outstanding in the account of the respondent, was no reason to dishonour his cheque. The banker is under an obligation to honour the customer''s cheque, if there is a credit balance in his account. This is a case of obvious deficiency in the service of the appellant, which is the direct result of gross negligence in the service putting the respondent to mental stress and strain and therefore, the appellant is liable to the damages that have occurred to the respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the District Forum is justified in awarding Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs and it is not unreasonable or exorbitant inviting our intervention. We, therefore, find no error committed by the District Forum.

FOR the reasons aforementioned, we dismiss this appeal. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.