SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK vs DEEPAK KUMAR MOHANTY

THIS is an appeal by the Canara Bank of Bhubaneswar Branch against the judgment directing them to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 250/- to the complainant.

COMPLAINANT''s case is a cheque for an amount of Rs. 14,000/- drawn by the mother of the complainant for payment on his behalf of the State Bank of India, Old Town Branch, Bhubaneswar was presented to the Canara Bank alongwith application forms etc. by the complainant to participate in a 16 per cent secured redeemable partly convertible debenture scheme floated by the Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. This was presented on 22.5.1992 to the Canara Bank who were authorised for receiving and sending the application forms with the amount as per the terms and conditions which was to reach the Company before 31st May, 1992. The complainant alleges because of the deficiency in service in not sending the application as well as the amount in question in time he suffered loss because of not being able to participate in the Scheme. He claimed compensation of Rs. 84,346/-. The appellant denied of any negligence on the part. The State Bank functionaries were O.P. Nos. 2 to 6. O.P. No. 4, Manager, In-charge Service Branch of the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar took the plea because the cheque bore two rubber stamps one showing the main branch and another showing the old branch, therefore, the cheque was sent for clearance to the Main Branch for which the State Bank authorities did not commit any mistake but the same was because of the negligence of the Canara Bank.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Canara Bank and Mr. M.M. Das the learned Counsel for the State Bank functionaries. None present for the complainant.

THE District Forum in para-5 of the case held that on the application form i.e., Annexure-3 the Old Town Branch have been clearly indicated and the cheque dated 22.5.1992 Annexure-4 shows that the stamp was affixed showing Bhubaneswar Main Branch at the prominent place which was the case of the State Bank functionaries. THE District Forum held that even this mistake was pointed out. THE (sic) Canara Bank should have corrected this before sending the same to the clearing house. It further held that when an account payee cheque is presented for realisation it is the primary duty of the Bank to scrutinise and ensure its speedy realisation. THE Canara Bank having failed to perform this onerous duty were deficient in service. Having heard the learned Counsel for both sides and going through the materials on record, the admitted position is document and the cheque in question dated 22.5.1992 for the said amount was received by the Canara Bank on 23.5.1992. Annexure-5(b) is the objection slip of the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch dated 9.6.2002. This has been returned with an objection that ''not drawn on them''. O.P. 4 the Chief Manager of the Service Branch of the State Bank of India in para-13 of the written version stated that the cheque was received by O.P. 4 on 29.5.1992 being received from the Canara Bank through the Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Banker''s Clearing House. The said cheque was presented before the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch because the rubber stamp was affixed on the cheque/instrument pertaining to S.B.I. Main Branch and which was returned by the S.B.I., Main Branch with an objection and thereafter it was returned to the present appellant-Bank alongwith objection slip.

THE present appellant in the written version stated that applications which were received upto 22.5.1992 were forwarded to the computer agency on 22.5.1992. 24.5.1992 being Sunday it was received on 25.5.1992 when the cheque was presented to the clearing house. This part of the case of the Canara Bank the appellant cannot be disbelieved, because of the endorsement of the Bank. Now the question is as to why the cheque was not sent to the State Bank of India, Old Town Branch which was the drawee bank. It is not the case of the O.Ps. that the cheque was itself defective or the account holder had no sufficient money in the account. THE amount could not be encashed because of the fact that the cheque was never presented to the drawee Bank, and this in our opinion was because of the mistake of the State Bank functionaries while handling the cheque from the date 29.5.1992 and thereafter. THE Company advertised and indicated that the issues vide Annexure-3 opened on 21.5.1992. Earliest closing date was 26.5.1992 and closing not later than 1st June, 1992. THE complainant did not commit any mistake in presenting the cheque on 23.5.1992. THE Canara Bank also sent the same for collection on 25.5.1992 and there was no delay on their part in sending the cheque for clearance. Now the case of the State Bank of India is because there were two rubber stamps on the cheque therefore those were sent to the Main Branch. But we do not accept such a case. Because the cheque itself positively indicated that the same was drawn on Old Town Branch, State Bank of India. THEre was nothing on the cheque itself to create any confusion on the part of the person handling at the Clearing House i.e., O.P. 4. Had there been any defect in the cheque itself creating confusion certainly there could have been some justification for the O.P. No. 4 the Clearing House to take such a stand. To be confused by mere appearance of two stamps is an explanation not acceptable to us. This is only a plea to explain the deficiency. If the cheque, the amount mentioned therein, the signature of the account holder and the branch on which it is drawn are clear and apparent there should not be any confusion not to send the cheque to the proper branch for collection and for that a technical plea being confused because of wrong placement of stamps does not strike to one''s reason. We accordingly hold that the State Bank of India-O.P. 4 to be liable for deficiency of service. We have not found any negligence on the part of the Canara Bank. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and direct the State Bank functionaries to be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount awarded by the District Forum to the complainant. Appeal is allowed. THE amount be paid by the O.Ps. 2 to 4 within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. No cost. Appeal allowed.