STATE BANK OF INDIA vs P. MURUGAN

The petitioner State Bank of India (SBI) has challenged the impugned order dated 29.02.2012, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 778/2010, " State Bank of India & Ors. vs. P. Murugan ", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Forum on 23.06.2010 in consumer complaint No. CC/6/2009, filed by the present respondent P. Murugan, allowing the said complaint, was confirmed.

The complainant/respondent P. Murugan stated in his consumer complaint No. 6/09 filed before the District Forum that he deposited a cheque bearing No. 983039 dated 01.03.2007 for value of 95,000/- with the branch of the State Bank of India at Devathanapatty, Theni District on 20.08.2007 for collection of amount in question. The said cheque had been issued by one P. Manmathan on the post office savings bank Devathanapatty. The complainant approached the said branch after a week of the said deposit and he was asked to come after two days. When he contacted the Branch after 2 days, he was asked to come again on 26.10.2007 evening. On that date, the OP Branch informed him that the cheque had been returned and he was asked to take back the cheque after production of the counter foil of the deposit of the cheque. The complainant demanded that the return memo issued by the Post Office should be given to him, but the OP Branch failed to give him the return memo. However, the said branch gave a receipt dated 26.10.2007, saying that the cheque bearing No. 983039 was with them. It has been alleged in the complaint that the said cheque was sent for collection on 03.11.2007 only, thus causing a delay of 2 1/2 months after the deposit of the said cheque with the Branch. The return memo was issued by the Post Office on 05.11.2007, which was given to the complainant on 26.11.2007. The complainant stated that the Branch Manager of the SBI Branch was a friend of P. Manmathan, who had issued the cheque and hence, they caused the said delay in sending the cheque to the post office just to help the drawer of the cheque. In view of the conduct of the OP-3 Branch, the cheque had become invalid and hence, the complainant was put to a great loss on that account. Through the consumer complaint in question, the complainants sought directions from the District From for payment of cheque amount of 95,000/- alongwith interest @12% from the date of presentation of the cheque, i.e., 20.08.2007 till realisation and also a sum of 1,01,650/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and 1 lakh as compensation against mental harassment.

The complaint was resisted by the OP-4 S. Rajasekaran, who was the branch Manager of OP-3 at that time, saying that the cheque had been sent to the local post office on the next day of the presentation of the same to the Bank, but the Post office refused to receive the cheque, saying that a court case was pending in the matter and the cheque will be honoured only after the disposal of the said court case. The above fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant by the Branch, but the cheque was kept in the Branch at the request of the complainant. The OP-4 further stated that in fact, Mr. Manmathan had lost the cheque book issued by the Post Office, containing the cheques bearing nos. 983020 to 983040 on 13.12.2006 and a report to that effect had been made with the local police. The cheque in dispute is also one of the cheques lost by Mr. Manmathan and, therefore, the post office did not honour the cheque. The OP-4 denied the allegations that there was any collusion between him and the drawer of the cheque. A copy of the letter dated 05.11.2007 issued by the post office Devathanapatty has also been placed on record which says that cheque No. 983039 was involved in a court case. The OP-4 stated that the allegations levelled in the complaint had no basis. The OP-3 Branch also filed their written version before the District Forum, saying that they adopted the reply filed by the OP-4.

The District Forum after taking into consideration the version made by the parties, passed the following order in the consumer complaint:-

" Finally, this complaint is partially admitted. We hereby order that Rs.15,000/- for the deficiency in service committed by the 3 and 4 Respondents, rd th Rs.15,000/- for the mental agony caused to the complainant on account of it, that is a total of 30,000/- as compensation and 12% interest from the date of filing of this case, till the total amount is settled and 5,000/- towards the expenses incurred for the conduct of the case should be paid to the complainant by the 3 Respondent rd within a month''s time and as the 4 Respondent was responsible for the above th deficiency in service, the 3 Respondent should pay the above mentioned amounts rd to the complainant and recover the same from the 4 Respondent. As far as the 1 th remedy for the complainant is concerned, the complaint is dismissed. Regarding st the 1st and 2nd respondents, this complaint is dismissed without any expenses. "

Being aggrieved against the above order of the District Forum, the State Bank of India challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the State Bank of India is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During arguments before this Commission, it was stated by the petitioner that there had been no deficiency in service on their part as they had sent the cheque for collection to the Post Office the very next day of the receipt of the same. The said cheque was not honoured by the Post office on the plea that a court case in the matter had been pending. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the report lodged by the drawer of the cheque with the Police, in which it has been stated that the cheque book containing 19 cheques numbering 983022 to 983040 had been lost. The Ld. Counsel stated that the Bank was not liable in any manner to pay compensation to the complainant.

The Ld. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand stated that the Bank kept the cheque with them for unreasonable long period of 2 1/2 months and hence, they committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. The Ld. Counsel stated that although a complaint was lodged with the police by the drawer of the cheque, no FIR had been registered by the Police. The orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are, therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The only point for consideration in the matter is whether the Bank has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant in handling the cheque in question, and realising the amount involved from the local post office. As admitted by both the parties, the said cheque had been issued by P. Manmathan on 01.03.2007, and that it was presented before the OP-3 Branch of the State Bank of India on 20.08.2007. In case, the version of the Bank that they had sent the cheque for collection to the local post office the very next day is believed, it is not clear why they asked the complainant to come to them again and again. It is also not clear how the Bank issued a document on 26.10.2007, carrying the seal of the Bank, saying that the concerned cheque was with them. In case, the post office had refused to honour the cheque for any reason, it was the duty of the Bank to have returned the said cheque to the complainant without any loss of time. The contention raised by the OP Bank that they retained the cheque in good faith at the request of the complainant, cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. Moreover, a copy of another document issued by the Post Office is on record which shows that the return memo was sent by the Post Office on 05.11.2007. This fact gives credence to the version given in the complaint that the cheque was sent to the Post Office for the first time on 03.11.2007 only, meaning thereby that the Bank retained the same for the period of 21/2 months without any rhyme or reason. The Bank is, therefore, clearly deficient in service towards the complainant.

It is further observed, that as admitted by both the parties, the cheque was issued on 01.03.2007. It is a matter of common knowledge that the validity of a cheque is only 3 months at present and in the earlier days, it used to be 6 months. Even if it is believed that the cheque was valid for a period of 6 months, it would have expired by the end of August 2007. There was, therefore, no justification for the Bank to send the cheque to the Post Office after the expiry of the same. This factor has not been touched upon anywhere in the material placed on record. In any case, the Bank has failed to advance any explanation as to why they retained the cheque for such a long time and what was their interest in doing so. The allegation levelled by the complainant that the Branch Manager of the Bank had friendly relations with the drawer of the cheque, cannot therefore, be brushed aside in view of the fact that the Bank has failed to offer any justification for keeping the cheque with them for an unreasonably long time. In view of the position explained in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no ground for interference in the well-reasoned orders passed by the Consumer Fora below, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The District Forum have allowed a sum of 15,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and another sum of 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant, meaning thereby that a total compensation of 30,000/- has been awarded alongwith interest @12% p.a. and 5,000/- as costs. Since there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said order, the same is hereby confirmed. The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.