STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR vs Canara Bank

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants which were opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum against order dated 26. 10. 2005 passed by the District Forum, Churu in Complaint No. 41/05 by which the complaint of complainant respondent No. 2 was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 52,400 the amount of the cheque to the complainant respondent No. 2 and further to pay Rs. 2,000 as amount of compensation and Rs. 1,000 as amount of costs and the complaint against respondent No. 1 which was opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum was rejected.

IT arises in the following circumstances: that the complainant respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint before the District Forum inter alia stating that he had deposited a cheque issued by Alrajhi Banking and Investment Corporation for Rs. 52,400 in the bank of the appellants on 11. 8. 2004 and that cheque was in the name of Canara Bank respondent No. 1. It was further stated that the appellants bank had sent the cheque through courier for clearance to respondent No. 1 but the cheque was lost in transit and, therefore, the amount of the cheque could not be received by the appellants bank from the Canara Bank and payment was not made and for that deficiency complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the appellants bank before the District Forum on 26. 7. 2005 inter alia stating that since the cheque in question had been lost in transit, therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the bank. Hence complaint be dismissed. No reply was filed by respondent No. 1 Canara Bank before the District Forum. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Churu through impugned order dated 26. 10. 2005 had allowed the complaint inter alia holding that full amount of the cheque was ordered to be paid by the appellants to complainant respondent No. 2. Aggrieved from the said order of the District Forum, this appeal has been filed by the appellants. In this appeal the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the findings by which the whole amount of the cheque was ordered to be paid by the appellants bank are erroneous one as in case of loss of cheque the amount of the lost cheque is not to be paid at the most compensation is to be paid and apart from that the Canara Bank is also responsible as the amount in question had been received by that bank especially when the cheque was issued by the Alrajhi Banking and Investment Corporation, Saudi Arabia and, therefore, Canara Bank must have been held responsible and thus appeal be allowed.

On the other hand the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned order and admitted the fact that no reply was filed by respondent No. 1 before the District Forum.

SO far as the legal position is concerned, it may be stated here that if the cheque which was sent for collection and if the same was lost in transit, the sending bank is held negligent and for that the amount of compensation for the deficiency is to be ordered to be paid and not the full amount of the cheque and from that point of view the impugned order could not be sustained. But in this case the peculiar feature is that as per the case of complainant respondent No. 2 the amount of the cheque had been deposited in the Canara Bank and since no reply had been filed by Canara Bank, therefore, from that point of view the matter is to be remanded back to the District Forum so that Canara Bank could file its reply before the District Forum, Churu. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26. 10. 2005 passed by the District Forum, Churu is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum for deciding it afresh on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Churu on 8. 11. 2007. It is further made clear that respondent No. 1 Canara Bank could file its reply on or before 8. 11. 2007 and after seeing the reply of Canara Bank the complainant respondent No. 2 as well as the appellants are free to file additional evidence and thereafter complaint would be decided afresh on merits. Appeal allowed.