Appeal No.2196/08

Punjab National Bank V. Smt.Mukesh Yadav


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Shashank Sharma,counsel for the appellant

Shri S.K.Yadav,counsel for the respondent





Date of Judgement : 2.7.09



BY THE STATE COMMISSION


This appeal has been filed by the appellant Punjab National Bank which was op before the District Forum,Alwar against the order dated 17.11.08 passed by the District Forum,Alwar in complaint no.512/07,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant bank in the manner that the appellant bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs.22,178/- to the complainant respondent within 30 days and further to pay interest wef 4.3.06 and further to pay Rs.1000/- as amount of cost of litigation.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant bank before the District Forum,Alwar on 25.9.07 interalia stating that she was having a saving bank account with the appellant bank and she had deposited a cheque no.110229023 payable at ICICI Bank,Delhi, on 4.3.06 and the cheque was for a sum of Rs.22,178/-, with a prayer that the cheque be credited in her account no.8360. It was further stated in the

2


complaint that in the month of April,06 the complainant respondent approached the appellant bank about the cheque in question,she was told that the cheque was sent for clearance to ICICI bank,Delhi but the cheque had not been received from clearing bank and ultimately the amount in question was not credited in the account of the complainant respondent and a legal notice was also given on 29.1.07 to the office of the appellant bank and thereafter the present complaint was filed.


A reply was fied by the appellant bank on 8.1.08 and the case of the appellant bank was that no doubt,the cheque in question was submitted to the bank of the appellant and it was further admitted that the cheque thereafter was sent for clearance to Delhi through registered AD of the post office,but the cheque was lost in transit and since the cheque was sent through postal services of the Post & Telegraph Department,therefore, Postal Department was a necessary party and the complainant respondent was asked to submit another cheque, but she refused and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing the parties through the impugned order dated 17.11.08 had come to the conclusion that since the cheque for a sum of Rs.22178/- had been lost in transit,therefore,the appellant bank is responsible for that and the complainant respondent is entitled to the full amount of the cheque from the appellant bank alongwith interest.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant bank.


In this appeal,the following contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant bank:


1.

that the Postal Department is a necesssary party as the cheque in question was sent through the postal services of the Post & Telegraph Department

3

ii)that it is the settled law that if the cheque is lost in transit the complainant respondent is entitled to some amount of compensation and not the full amount of the cheque in question and thus it was prayed that the appeal be allowed.


On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant respondent has supported the impugned order.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.


Since in this case facts are not in dispute and the only question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above,findings recorded by the District Forum by which full amount of cheque was ordered to be paid by the appellant to the complainant respondent in case of cheque lost in transit should be sustained or not;


So far as the preliminary question whether the Postal Department in such a case is a necessary party or not, this Commission is of the view that the Postal Department is not a necessary party in this case and the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the appellant bank stands rejected.


On second point,the position of law is very much clear on point that in case of loss of cheque in transit where the cheque was sent for collection and the cheque was lost in transit,the bank is held negligent as the bank did not take proper care as was expected from it. A banker,in collecting the cheque,is required to exercise the same care which reasonable a businessman would bring to bear in handing valuable negotiable instruments.


Thus the fact that since the cheque was lost in transit,therefore,the appellant bank was rightly held negligent in delivering services to the complainant respondent.


On point of compensation.

4

There are series of judgements delivered by Hon'ble the National Commission indicating the position of law in the manner that in case cheque is lost in transit and where the amount was not credited in the account of the complainant and further the cheque in question had not been returned by the bank,the bank would be liable to pay some amount of compensation and not entire amount of cheque and for that following judgements delivered by the Hon'ble National Commission may be referred to:

1.

Revision Petition No. 3363/04 decided on 4.12.06, Canara Bank V. Sudhir Ahuja reported in 1(2007)CPJ I (NC)

2.Revision Petition No.2808/04 decided on 17.7.06, Corporation Bank V. NCS Films.


Taking that into consideration the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the entire amount of cheque was ordered to be paid by the appellant bank to the complainant respondent could not be sustained and thus the complainant respondent is entitled to some sort of compensation from the appellant bank and not full amount of the cheque.


In our considered opinion, an amount of Rs.14,000/- would be just, proper and equitable compensation for the deficiency committed by the appellant bank and thus on point of compensation,this appeal deserves to be allowed partly.Since while awarding interest the District Forum had not assigned any rate of interest and in our considered opinion,the rate of interest would be @ 9% p.a.


Accordingly,this appeal filed by the appellant bank is allowed partly in the manner that the appellant bank would pay only a sum of Rs.14,000/- in place of Rs.22178/- to the complainant respondent alongwith interest @ 9% p.a on the amount of Rs.14,000/- wef 4.3.06 and to the above extent the impugned order dated 17.11.08 passd by the District Forum,Alwar is modified. Rest order is maintained.



Member President