State Bank of India vs INTEGRATED DEVICES

APPEAL No. 398/A/97 is taken up for hearing alongwith this appeal on the ground that these two appeals arise out of common judgment dated 4.6.1997 and the facts and law involved are the same.

HEARD learned Counsels for the parties. By the impugned judgment dated 4.6.1997 the Forum was pleased to issue the following direction which reads as under : The State Bank of India, Chinsurah Branch with the help of the petitioner will obtain a duplicate cheque or any other instrument in respect of the dues of the petitioner and thereafter shall make payment to the petitioner. The petitioner shall render all help in the matter. If such attempt for obtaining of a duplicate cheque or any other instruments fails, then the S.B.I., Chinsurah Branch shall pay the entire sum of Rs. 32,996/- to the petitioner.

Besides the Forum granted an award of Rs. 6,000/- towards compensation to be paid equally by the opposite parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the State Bank of India submits that there was no contractual obligation on the part of the S.B.I. to render service to the present complainant. Accordingly he submits that the Forum fell in an error that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the S.B.I. so as to saddle it with the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. The facts which are not disputed are that cheque dated 31st March, 1995 was presented to the banker of the present complainant namely the Bank of India after the expiry of two months and 24 days for encashment. Thereafter the Bank of India tendered this cheque to the State Bank of India on 30th June, 1995 for encashment. Learned Counsel for the State Bank of India submits that since the cheque was tendered before the Bank on the last day of validity period it could not honoured but the Bank of India retained the said cheque for about 6 days before tendering it to the State Bank of India for payment. There is no explanation as to why Bank of India could not move fast so that the cheque could be honoured within the validity period. In these circumstances, it is evident that the banker of the complainant namely the Bank of India is to some extent guilty and negligent or deficient in service in the matter of encashment of the cheque through the State Bank of India. In our view certain aspects of the case do not support the contention that the State Bank of India is in anyway responsible for this incident. Therefore, we think that if any compensation is to be awarded it is to be awarded only against Bank of India and not against State Bank of India.

NOW coming to the question about the illegality of the direction issued by the Forum, we notice that the Forum in its wisdom directed that the State Bank of India, Chinsurah Branch with the help of the petitioner will obtain a duplicate cheque or any other instrument in respect of the dues of the petitioner and in the event such attempts fail, State Bank of India would be liable to make payment of the entire sum covered under the cheque. We think that this direction of the Forum cannot be sustained. The petitioner may approach the proper authority for revalidation of the cheque if he is interested in getting the money for the articles allegedly supplied by it. The State Bank of India has no role in the matter. The State Bank of India is in no way responsible for the unfortunate incident and should not be asked to pay any compensation. But the Bank of India was certainly responsible for not tendering the cheque before S.B.I. then and there resulting in unfortunate situation. So we think that it would be proper if a sum of Rs. 1,000/- is awarded as compenation to the petitioner for deficiency in service on the part of the Bank of India.

WITH this observation the appeal is disposed of. This judgment will cover on both the appeals. Appeal disposed of.