1.      This Revision Petition No. 2250 of 2016 challenges the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow (‘the State Commission’) dated 18.03.2016. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 2084 of 2010 and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Agra (‘the District Forum’) order dated 15.11.2010.

2.      The present Revision Petition was initially dismissed as barred by limitation by this Commission vide order dated 14.09.2018. In response, the Petitioner/OP filed Civil Appeal Nos. 12260-12261 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeal thereby condoning the delay in filing the Revision Petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order of this Commission dated 14.09.2018. As a result, the matter was remitted back to this Commission for determination on merits.

Top of Form

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he had held a Savings Bank Account (No. 1211000003240) with Opposite Party (OP) Bank at Sanjay Place, Agra. On 21.09.2002, he deposited a Payment Warrant (No. 6540222699) for USD $15,000 into his account. The OP Bank assured him that the payment would be credited within about one month. However, even after a year had passed, the bank failed to credit the amount to his account, and they did not provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay despite inquiries. While the complainant had sent notices to the bank, no response was received, and the amount from the payment warrant remained uncredited. Consequently, feeling aggrieved by the bank's actions, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking redressal.

4.      In reply, the OP Bank contended that they did not find any record of the alleged warrant being deposited in their bank, hence the question of crediting the amount to the Complainant's account did not arise. The Bank claimed that they had duly replied to the notice sent by the Complainant and suggested that the Complainant could have made inquiries with the bank that issued the payment warrant. They asserted that the Bank had fulfilled its obligations as a banker and that there was no deficiency in service. The OP Bank further asserted that inquiries made to its main branch in Mumbai, revealed that the Bank had forwarded the said payment warrant for payment to Canada through ‘Wachovia Bank’, its associate bank. However, the payment was not made due to ‘incorrect domicile details’ associated with the warrant. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that the institution issuing the payment warrant had issued several similar warrants fraudulently. These fraudulent warrants were being retained by Wachovia Bank for investigation purposes, leading the Bank to conclude that the Complainant was not entitled to receive any payment against the aforementioned fraudulently issued warrant. The OP sought to dismiss the complaint.

5.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 15.11.2010, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/OP as under:

“ORDER:

  Complaint is accepted. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 09 percent per annum from 21.9.2002 till the date of actual payment within 30 days of this judgment. Apart from this, Rs. 2000/- as cost of the complaint be also paid to the complainant within this period. In default, the complainant will also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on this amount of Rs. 2000/- from the date of judgment till the date of its actual payment.”                            (Extracted from translated copy)

6.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/OP filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 18.03.2016 dismissed the same and observed as follows:

 “We have heard the arguments of the Id. Counsel for the parties.

From the perusal of the record, it is clear that this is admitted that the complainant has deposited his Payment Warrant of 15000 American Dollars in his account in Sanjay Place, Agra. Although the bank has earlier denied the fact of deposit of above said Payment Warrant, but later on, the bank has admitted this that the complainant had deposited the above Payment Warrant and the same has been sent for payment to Canada by the OP bank through its associate Bank, Wachovia bank, payment of the same has not been received. It has been contended by the Bank that the Bank has received the information on 28.2.2006 of not making the payment due to "domicile incorrect" of the Payment warrant, whereas this complaint has been received in the year 2003 and admittedly, the Payment Warrant had been deposited by the complainant in the Bank on 21.9.2002. The Payment Warrant had been deposited in the year 2002 and complaint has been filed in the year 2003. In between this, the OP Bank neither has given any intimation to the complainant nor has made the payment of his Payment Warrant in the account of the complainant and nor has returned the Payment Warrant, which is not only the deficiency of the OP Bank but also shows the Unfair Trade Practice.

The Ld. Counsel for the respondent in support of his contention has cited the judgment II (2006) CPJ 185 (NC) Mohd. Ayub Vs Central Bank of India & Anr, in which the Hon'ble National Commission has determined that if the cheque is lost by the Bank and payment is not made for a long time, then this is deficiency in service of the bank. In such circumstances, has given the direction to make the payment of the amount of cheque.

"8. There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that there is a clear cut deficiency of service by the Central Bank of India in this case. Negligence by the public functionaries especially those who are well paid cannot be tolerated."

From the above, it is clear that if the payment of Payment Warrant was not made in Canada due to "Domicile incorrect", then this information should had been immediately given to the complainant whereas the OP Bank has intentionally not given the reply of the notice to the complainant. Also no such evidence is on the record available from which it may be proved that Payment Warrant issued by Global Settlement Organization, Canada was fabricated and the above said Warrant had been retained by the associate Bank Wachovia bank of the Opposite Party Bank for investigation of the case. Intimation of this should have been given by the OP Bank to the complainant. The letter dated 28.2.2006 issued by the bank has been accepted suspicious by the District Forum. Affidavits of the concerned officers have also not been filed for the genuineness of the above letter. The complainant has also filed the receipt of issuing the Payment Warrant in the bank and also copy of the notice issued to the Opposite Party Bank filed on record. In its pleadings, the Opposite Party bank itself has mentioned contradictory facts. The Opposite Party Bank has filed the letter dated 28.2.2006, it is also not clarified when and in what manner the bank has received the same. The other letter is also of dated 28.2.2006 in which it has been stated that the suspicious items are not returned to the Depositor but no letter related to this fact has been filed, from which it may be clarified that the Payment Warrant deposited by the complainant has been found suspicious. The District From has considered on all the facts, has found deficiency in service by the Opposite Party bank and has given direction to make the payment of Rs. 8 lakhs along with 09 percent interest equivalent to the payment warrant of 15000 dollars deposited by the complainant and has allowed Rs. 2000/- cost of the complaint, in which, there is no justification of interference.

As a result, this appeal has no force and this appeal is liable to be dismissed accordingly.

ORDER

The Present appeal is dismissed, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, IInd Agra in Complaint No. 525 of 2003 is confirmed.

The appellant will pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand separately to the respondent/complainant as cost of this appeal.”                               (Extracted from translated copy)

7.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition, Appeal filed before the State Commission and Reply filed before the District Forum and asserted that when the warrant itself is found to be fraudulent and no such bank called ‘Federally Chartered Bank, Canada’ exists as per Banker’s Almanac, Canada, no liability of any nature whatsoever can be fastened against the Petitioner Bank.  He sought to set aside the concurrent findings of both Fora below and dismiss the complaint.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Mohd. Ayub vs Central Bank of India, (II)2006CPJ185 (NC)

(ii) Standard Chatered Bank Vs. Kufri Hotel Pvt.Ltd., R.P. No.220 of 2012, decided on 04.02.2013 by the NCDRC;

(iii) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Simco Industries, (2002) 2 SCC 1;

(iv) Orental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Munimahesh Patel, (2007) 2 LW 661.

8.      Learned Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant argued in favour of the concurrent findings of fora below and sought dismissal of the Revision Petition. He has relied on the following judgments:

(i) Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269;

(ii) Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Anr. Vs. M/s. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. & Ors., 2018 (4) C.P.R. 234;

(iii) UTI Infrastructure Technology & Services Ltd. & Ors. Vs. U. Sandhya Sree & Anr., 2021 NCJ 79;

(iv) IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ankitaben Manojbhai Neta, 2021 NCJ 138;

(v) Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani, 2007 AIR (SC) 1721;

(vi) Momna Gauri Vs Regional Manager & Ors 2017(1)CPJ 11

(vii) Megha Vs M/s Lahoti Munot Construction 2018(1)CPR 251

(viii) Punj LIoyd Limited Vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd., 2009 (2) SCC 301;

9.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent appearing in person.

10.    The central issue in this case revolves around whether there is any deficiency in service to the Complainant by the OP bank in not crediting the amount with respect to the ‘Payment Warrant’ No.  6540222699 for USD 15,000/- deposited by the Petitioner in the OP Bank? And, if so, what is the compensation the Complainant is entitled to with respect to the said payment warrant?

11.    It is undisputed that on 21.09.2002, the Complainant deposited payment warrant No. 6540222699 No.4613687 for USD 15,000 purportedly issued by Global Settlement Organization, drawn on Federally Chartered Bank, Canada for collection in the Saving Bank Account No.1211000003240 of Sanjay Palace Branch, Agra of the Petitioner/OP Bank. Thereafter, the OP Bank forwarded the said warrant for clearance. However, it was dishonoured by Wachovia Bank on account of incorrect domicile on 28.02.2006. The letter dated 28.02.2006 issued by ‘Wachovia Bank’ is reproduced as under:

“28^th February, 2006

Mr. Jayshankar Velayudhan,

Manager-Trade Finance

HDFC Bank Ltd.

26 A, Chandivili, Off Saki Vihar Road

Saki Naka, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 072

Fax: 2856 9592/2490 0853

Dear Mr Jayshankar,

Re: Cheque No. 4613687 for US$ 15,000 sent by your bank of collection

With reference to your Cheque No. 4613687 for US$ 15,000 drawn by Global Settlement Organisation, Payment Warrant Section, Canada favouring Anurag Gupta, please be advised that the aforesaid Cheque was returned due to Domicile Incorrect.

The term Domicile Incorrect conveys that the Payee Bank does not exist or could be the ABA/Routing number on the check is not good.

Further, as per the Banker's Almanac, Federally Chartered Bank, Canada or Federal Chartered Bank, Canada does not exist.

Please feel free to contact me should you need any details.

Yours sincerely,

 Sd/- Authorised Signatory Wachovia Bank N.A.

12.    Another letter dated 28.02.2006 issued by ‘Wachovia Bank’ is also reproduced below:

“28^th February, 2006

Mr. Jayshankar Velayudhan,

Manager-Trade Finance

HDFC Bank Ltd.

26 A, Chandivili,

Off Sakei Vihar Road

Saki Naka, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 072

Fax: 2856 9592

Dear Mr Jayshankar,

Re: Cheque No. 4613687 for US$ 15,000 fvg. Anurag Gupta

This is to confirm that it is a general practice in USA, not to return fraudulent items back to the depositor.

Please feel free to contact me should you need any details.

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-

Authorised Signatory

Wachovia Bank N.A.”

13.    In the present case, on 21.09.2002 the Complainant had submitted ‘Payment Warrant’ No.6540222699 drawn on Federally Chartered Bank, Canada for USD 15,000/-. It is stated to have been issued by ‘Global Settlement Organization’ to be deposited in his SB Account No. 1211000003240 of the OP Bank at Sanjay Place Branch Agra. On receiving, the OP Bank forwarded the said payment warrant submitted by the Complainant for clearance. However, it was dishonoured by Wachovia Bank on 28.02.2006, citing incorrect domicile details associated with the warrant. The OP Bank's actions in this case involved receiving the Payment Warrant, forwarding it for clearance, and subsequently informing him of the dishonour of the warrant due to reasons stated and provided details to him, as evidenced by the letters issued by Wachovia Bank on 28.02.2006. Clearly, the OP bank forwarded the payment warrant for clearance and it was due to dishonour of the warrant by Wachovia Bank, the fund was not credited to the Complainant's account. This led to the dispute between the Complainant and the OP bank, with the complainant seeking redressal for the non-payment of the funds.

14.    The Complainant asserted that the OP Bank had assured him that his payment would be processed within about one month. However, despite the passage of a year, the bank had not credited the amount to his account. In response, the OP Bank provided a detailed rebuttal, refuting the allegations and explained that as per standard banking process, the clearance of overseas cheques or warrants typically takes over a month. The warrant deposited by him was deemed invalid for payment as it was found to be fake, and the bank on which it was drawn was non-existent in Canada. Therefore, the OP Bank argued that under such circumstances, there was no basis for crediting any amount to the Complainant's account.

15.    As regards delay in this case, it is undisputed that the payment warrant was drawn on a bank in Canada (Federally Chartered Bank, Canada). International transactions often require additional time due to involvement of multiple banking systems, currency conversions, and compliance with international regulations. Also, Banks typically have verification procedures in place to ensure legitimacy of each instrument and claim. This process entails inherent verification of authenticity of the instrument (the payment warrant), confirming the identity of the both the parties and the genuineness of the instrument and transaction as per international banking regulations. When issues or discrepancies with the payment warrant, such as incorrect domicile details, Bank itself being found non-existent, suspected fraud etc emerge, clearly banks will have to conduct investigations to resolve the issues before further process and remittance, if any, can be done only when the instrument is found genuine and duly honoured.

16.    In the present case, as per the Complainant, he deposited the said payment warrant on 21.09.2002 with the OP Bank, based on the assurance that the warrant would be processed within about one month. However, despite passing over a year, the proceeds were not credited. Numerous inquiries were made by him as regards payment and the OP failed to provide a satisfactory response. On 10.02.2003, he served a legal notice, which was received by OP on 11.02.2003. However, OP Bank did not respond. In this regard, the OP Bank admitted receiving the legal notice dated 10.02.2003 and clarified that the matter was discussed with the Complainant when he visited the bank. Therefore, OP Bank asserted that there was no admission of deficiency. However, communication in the present case between the OP Bank and the Complainant regarding the payment warrant appears to be inadequate. At the same time, undisputedly, on 21.09.2002 the Complainant had deposited the said payment warrant with the OP Bank to be credited into his Savings Bank Account, on being cleared. The OP Bank forwarded the payment warrant for clearance, expecting the funds to be cleared to be credited into his account. However, the payment warrant was dishonored by Wachovia Bank and the same was notified on 28.02.2006 on account of incorrect domicile details associated with the warrant. This information was communicated to the OP Bank. When the credit of the payment warrant was delayed and finally dishonoured, the OP Bank ought to have communicated to the complainant. However, it was not done. Only after the Complainant initiated legal action, filing a Consumer Complaint seeking redressal, the details surrounding the dishonor of the payment warrant came to light. Overall, there was a lack of communication from OP Bank to the Complainant regarding the processing and disposal of the payment warrant.

17.    Notwithstanding the same, it is undisputed that the name of the Bank mentioned in the Payment Warrant was reported to be not even in existence. This potentially raises concerns with respect to legitimacy of the transaction itself and its legal implications. When once it is determined that the financial institution referred in the payment warrant does not even exist, or such entity is not authorized to issue such warrant, it indicates certain activities outside the purview of law. Issuing a payment warrant from a non-existent or unauthorized entity with intent wrongfully gain is typically considered as fraudulent.

18.    In his rejoinder before the learned District Forum, the Complainant resisted that the stand of the OP Bank that the instrument in question was not valid or that the bank on which it was drawn did not exist. He asserted that there was no evidence to support these claims, apart from postal correspondence, which was presented only as photocopies and lacked the presence of the individual who authored the letters. Additionally, the envelopes through which these letters were received were not provided as evidence. He pointed that the instrument presented for encashment was legally valid and documented and the OP Bank deliberately chose not to credit the proceeds of the instrument into his account, despite its legitimacy.

19.    Evidently, the Complainant’s contentions are untenable as the letters received by the OP Bank were presented in evidence. While it was specifically asserted that ‘as per the Banker's Almanac, Federally Chartered Bank, Canada or Federal Chartered Bank, Canada does not exist’. Further, the instrument was not returned citing reason that “it is a general practice in the US that fraudulent items are not returned to the depositor”. The nature of the instrument ‘payment warrant’ is not on record as to ascertain who issued the same to him, except for the counterfoil of the voucher depositing the same in the OP Bank. While such assertions were made and the warrant was dishonoured, the Complainant neither established their existence and competence to issue such instruments, nor made the said ‘Global Settlement Organisation’, ‘Federally Charted Bank’ and/or ‘Wachovia Bank’ as parties to the complaint. In any case, he did not produce any reissued and valid payment warrant with respect to the same transaction. If the Complainant was a victim of such delay and non-payment by the OP bank and dishonour of the payment warrant presented by him entailing financial losses, in normal course, he would have taken necessary legal recourse with respect to the instrument in question. In any case, the payment warrant was clarified to have been payable by a Bank which is not even in existence. This was not even challenged by him. In addition to not making these Banks and Global Settlement Organisation as parties to the case, no other genuine instrument with respect to same consideration was obtained and brought on record. Needless, to say, presenting such instruments which are dishonoured by the international processing agency for the reasons stated thereat, have its legal implications over and above the dishonour of the payment warrant. It is possible that the Complainant initially believed that the payment warrant obtained by him as valid and legitimate. However, when once it was dishonoured and declared dubious with adverse remarks on the genuinity of the instrument itself, he ought to have exercised his right with the issuer of the warrant. However, neither any fresh and valid instrument nor denial for issue of such instrument is brought on record.

20.    As regards processing of the same for payment, there can be no doubt that the OP is merely acting as a facilitator to collect the amount from the payee bank and credit the same in the account of the Complainant. The OP bank initially negated such transaction for about one year during 2002-03, until filing of the Complaint with the District Forum. Thereafter, OP Bank acknowledged the receipt of instrument and clarified the process adopted in forwarding the same for collection through its associate bank. However, when once it has come to light at a subsequent date that it was a fraudulent instrument, the Complainant ought to have taken necessary legal steps, to get appropriate reliefs in respect of such fraudulent instrument from the person(s) who issued it to him. There is no material on record with respect to the steps taken by him in this regard. Also, it is not known whether he even took such steps. Also, the Complainant has not mentioned at any stage of the proceedings, whether he stood losing out claim to such reliefs due to any fault of the OP bank, if so, in what manner. In these circumstances, it is neither appropriate nor feasible to quantify any damages for any deficiency in service, independent of our finding that the burden of value of such fraudulent instrument cannot be placed on the OP, when the OP Bank is a mere facilitator for collecting the money from payee bank and deposit in the Complainant’s account.

21.    Undisputedly the payment warrant deposited on 21.09.2002 by the Complainant and forwarded for clearance by the OP Bank was dishonored by Wachovia Bank, the international processing agency, citing the reasons stated above. As a result, funds were not received by the OP Bank to be credited into his account. Clearly, OP Bank is merely an intermediator to the financial transaction between him and the Institution which issued the said payment warrant. The role of the OP Bank is to facilitate the transfer of funds between parties based on RBI guidelines and recover its authorized commission. However, since the warrant was dishonored by Wachovia Bank, the transaction was not completed and the OP bank did not receive any payment. Without receiving the payment from the issuer of the payment warrant, the OP Bank cannot be compelled to credit the funds to the Complainant's account. Such action is against the public policy as no funds for which the Complainant was entitled were ever received by the OP Bank. The OP Bank is the custodian of public money to be held in public interest as per RBI guidelines.

22.    In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the learned State Commission and the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned District Forum are set aside.  Consequently, the Revision Petition No.2250 of 2016 is allowed and the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant is dismissed.

23.    Needless to say, unless not already done, the Complainant has right to explore other appropriate legal avenues to seek relief in respect of such fraudulent instrument issued to him against appropriate party/parties, and seek benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in doing so.

24.    There shall be no order as to costs.

25.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.