IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section-9 Clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)




Date of Decision: 19-03-2009


Appeal No. FA-07/295

(Arising out of Order dated 05-03-2007 passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint No. 1073/2006)







The Adarsh Co-op. Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.

459, Teliwara, Shahdara,

Delhi 110032.

….. Appellant



Versus





1. ICICI Bank Limited,

Through Its Manager,

Sincere Tower-IV,

Community Centre,

Preet Vihar,

Delhi 110092.



ICICI Bank Limited,

Through Its Chairman,

Landmark, Race Course Circle,

Vadodara. …. Respondent


CORAM


JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

MS. RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER



1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?



JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR (ORAL)



1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned Order dated 05-03-2007 passed by the District Forum whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation for not clearing the cheque of the appellant within 7 days, which in turn resulted in dishonouring of a cheque issued by the appellant to another party, was dismissed, the appellant has preferred this appeal.



2. The case of the appellant in brief was that the appellant is a society and was having a special Saving Account No. 003701044621 with the respondent bank. It deposited a cheque of Rs. 1.5 Lac drawn on Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar, Delhi, for collection on its behalf on 16-08-06. The appellant was informed by the drawer of the cheque that the said cheque was enchased on 18-06-06. Believing this, the appellant issued a cheque of Rs. 1,70,000/- to its member one Shri Rajesh Kumar on 19-08-06 under the impression that it was having sufficient funds in the account. However, the said cheque issued by the appellant was dishonoured on 19-08-06. The appellant approached the respondent bank on 21-08-06 as 20-08-06 happened to be a Sunday. However, as per the appellant the late realization of the cheque resulting in dishonour of the cheque issued by its caused loss of reputation and loss to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking relief.



3. In its defence the respondent Bank averred that the there was no deficiency in service. Further that the delay occurred on account of lapse on the part of Syndicate Bank as it was lying with them till 23-08-06 and was credited only on 23-08-06.



4. As is apparent there is no dispute that the appellant deposited a cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank with the respondent on 16-08-2006. There is also no dispute that the cheque was sent to Syndicate Bank through clearing house on 18-08-2006. The only deficiency of the respondent Bank, if at all, is that it should have realized the amount of the cheque prior to 23-08-2006 and it was only on 23-08-2006 that the proceeds of the cheque were credited.



5. As is apparent the respondent is shifting the blame to the Syndicate Bank whereas the fact remains that the appellant was a customer of the respondent bank. In ordinary course when a person deposits a cheque the minimum expectation is that the cheque given by him on a particular date in normal course would be encahsed or credited into his account within 2-3 days and if inordinately long time is taken for clearing the cheque the person runs the risk of issuing a cheque to somebody else which may get dishonoured.



6. Though the deficiency on the part of the respondent in taking seven days for clearing the cheque is very limited and minor but the appellant which is a Society might have suffered some loss in respect of its reputation because a cheque issued by it, on the strength of the cheque deposited by it with the respondent, got dishonoured.



7. The respondent bank deposited the cheque in the clearing house of Syndicate Bank on 17-08-2006 whereas the Syndicate Bank received it on 18-08-2006. The cheque remained unlisted due to some mechanical fault in the system of Syndicate Bank. 19th and 20th happened to be holidays. So on 22nd the money was cleared by Syndicate Bank.



8. However, since the Syndicate Bank is involved in this and the deficiency in service, if any, was on the part of the Syndicate Bank and the respondent had no role to play, the finding of fact returned by the District Forum has to be maintained.



9. Aforesaid facts persuade us to dismiss the appeal as there is no deficiency in service whatsoever on the part of the respondent bank.



10. Appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.



11. Impugned Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.



12. Copy of Order, as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties and to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record.



13. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released under proper receipt.