TUFAIL AHMED SHAH vs JAndK BANK

NEMO for the appellant, Counsel for repondents present. Last time also nobody appeared for the appellant. We have heard learned Counsel for the respondents and have perused the whole record ourselves. Appeal is directed against the order dated 11.6.2001 passed by the DF whereby DF has dismissed the complaint of the appellant.

FACTS barely needed for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 18,000/- in favour of one Mohammad Umar in the name of J and K Bank, Branch Soura in which branch the complainant had Saving Bank Account. The cheque was not cashed and was returned for want of sufficient funds. Complainant has filed the complaint with the allegations that he had hired the services of respondent. Respondent failed to collect the amount of Rs. 4,000.00 for which complainant had deposited a cheque with the J and K Bank, Soura Branch for collection from Bhaderwah Branch of J and K Bank prior to the issuance of aforesaid cheque for Rs. 18,000.00. The cheque for Rs. 4,000.00 which was sent to Bhaderwah Branch by the Soura Branch of J and K Bank. The same is reported to have been lost in transit, so Rs. 4,000.00 could not be credited in the account of complainant/appellant nor it was debited from the Drawer''s Account. Soura Branch thus returned the cheque because there was only round about Rs. 16,000.00 in the account of complainant so they returned the cheque for want of sufficient funds.

Evidence was recorded. DF passed the impugned order in which it was held that Soura Branch of J and K Bank had taken all the precautions in sending the cheque to Bhaderwah Branch of J and K Bank through Desk to Desk Courier Service. They are not responsible if it is lost in the transit.

HEARD learned Counsel for the respondents. Our attention has been drawn to Annexure-D to the complaint which is counterfoil of pay-in-slip. From this document it is crystal clear that the cheque is being sent to collection to J and K Bank, Branch Bhaderwah on the risk and responsibility of account holder and this condition is agreed to by the complainant. Learned Counsel for the respondents has rightly argued that in such circumstances Soura Branch of J and K Bank was bound to sent the cheque to Bhaderwah Branch of J and K Bank for collection with due care and caution.

THE evidence shows that the respondent/OP has taken all due care and caution in sending the cheque through Courier Service. THEre is no fault of Soura Branch of J and K Bank if the cheque is lost in transit by the Courier Service people. Secondly, learned Counsel for the respondents have convinced us that no service charges were taken for collection of cheques by the respondent viz-a-viz in Saving Accounts. Simple fact of the case is that complainant had deposited the cheque for Rs. 4,000.00 in the Soura Branch of J and K Bank which was to be collected from Bhaderwah Branch of J and K Bank. We have to see whether the Soura Branch has taken the precautions in sending the cheque for collection. Respondent has produced receipt from Courier Service from which it is apparently clear that the cheque was sent through Desk to Desk Courier Service and their receipt in this behalf is placed on the file which is exhibited as Annexure to the Affidavit of Zahoor Ahmed Misgar, witness of OP.

DF has rightly held the respondents not liable for deficiency of service. He has in this connection cited the case titled as Chief General Manager, State Bank of India v. R. Satiados, II (1996) CPJ 213.

WE are convinced that the impugned judgment passed by the DF does not warrant any interference from us. Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.