Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda

THIS complaint has been filed for damages of Rs. 4,99,000/-. Facts of the case, stated in brief, are as follows :

THE complainant in pursuance of an advertisement, published in Amar Ujala in the year 1991, applied for appearing in the examination of P.C.S. (J) (Munsif Magistrate). He was preparing for this post for the last two years and had purchased books worth Rs. 1,500/-. He had full hopes of success in the examination. He deposited a sum of Rs. 30/- with Bank of Baroda, opposite party, for a draft to cover the fee for the said examination. THE draft was issued by the Bank after about 2-3 days. THE complainant completed the formalities on 9.3.1991. THE application was sent by the complainant, accompanied with the draft, to the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission (UPPSC), Allahabad, through registered post and he was allotted a Roll Number. Before the start of the examination, by a letter dated 24.9.1991, the complainant was informed by UPPSC that the draft is time barred and hence the application of the complainant is rejected. It came to the light that on the draft date of issue was mentioned as 4.3.1990 instead of 4.3.1991. On account of this fault of the Bank, the entire career of the complainant was marred and he suffered heavy losses. The complainant has, therefore, lodged claim of Rs. 4,50,000/- as damages and Rs. 29,000/- as compensation.

The opposite party, Bank of Baroda, in its written sttatement has alleged that the complainant is not a consumer. According to own allegation of the complainant, the draft was prepared on 4.3.1991 and after completing the formalities on 9.3.1991, the draft was sent to UPPSC. The complainant should have checked the date of draft during these four days and especially before sending it to UPPSC. The complainant must have filled up in the application form the details of draft and this mistake could have been detected at that time. The complainant is not entitled to any damages because they are remote damages.

BOTH the parties have led their evidence in respect of their case. We have heard learned Counsels for both the parties. Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that draft which was prepard by the oppoite party, Bank of Baroda, was wrongly prepared by indicating therein the year 1990 instead of 1991. Hence the complainant has debarred from appearing in the examination as his application form was rejected. On the other hand learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the draft remained in possession of the complainant for about 4-5 days and during this period he could have detected this mistake which could have been corrected by the Bank. He has further argued that the columns made for filling the particulars of the draft must have been filled by the complainant.

KEEPING in view the facts of the case, we find that the complainant applied for issue of a draft of Rs. 30/- on 4.3.1991 for sending the same as fee for examination of Uttar Pradesh Provincial Services (Judicial Branch). The complainant should have, before sending the draft, checked as to whether the entries in the draft have been correctly made or not because wrong entries would have meant rejection of the application which actually happened in the case. Some extra precaution was needed in this case. The complainant must have filled up the columns made for filling particulars of the draft. At that time also the complainant must have come to know about the year mentioned in the draft. Equally so the Bank should have, before the issuance of the said draft, carefully scrutinized the draft to see whether all the entries have been correctly filled or because the draft is to be sent outside, then a lot of inconvenience is caused and time is consumed in getting the mistake rectified. Some time it may cause severe loss to the party sending the draft if the payment is not made within the stipulated time. Thus we find on the basis of the evidence that both the parties are to be blamed for not detecting this mistake in the year mentioned on the draft. The complainant also is contributed to the negligence in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the enire fault lies with the opposite party. Had the complainant been vigilant, this defect could have been detected at the last minute. The damages in such a case are remote in nature and the entire amount claimed by the complainant cannot be awarded. However, wrong entry with respect to mentioning the year in the draft is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Bank of Baroda. In view of this fact, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- will be sufficient as amount of token compensation to the complainant to meet the ends of justice.

THE case is liable to be decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only. Order THE complaint case is decreed only for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. THE complainant will also get Rs. 500/- as cost of the proceedings of the case. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months. Let copies of the order be issued as per norms. Complaint disposed of.