Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 317 (HP)

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK v. SATINDER KUMAR

2006-10-11

A.K.GOEL, NARINDER SINGH THAKUR, SAROJ SHARMA

body2006
ORDER Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral):- This is an application filed for impleadment of Senior Post Master, the Mall Shimla as well as Chief Manager, Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mittal Tower, C-wing 3rd Floor. Nariman Point, Bombay. Admittedly both of them were not the parties before the District Forum below. 2. Even other wise facts giving rise to this appeal wherein the application in question has been filed are within a narrow compass. With the appellant as his banker, the respondent deposited a draft dated 18.2.2002 for 700 sterling pounds. This was deposited on 18.3.2000, expecting that it will be credited seen to his bank Account No. 57883 by the appellant. But even after almost more than one year when needful was not done, complaint was filed by the respondent. Stand of the appellant bank before the District Forum below was that since the refund of sterling 700 already been received by the respondent, therefore the complaint does not survice and was liable to be dismissed. In its reply on merits, case of the appellant was that since the draft in question was payable by the Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mittal Tower. C-wing 3rd Floor, Nariman Point, Bombay issued by Westminster Bank, London, and was sent for collection to Bombay by the appellant, it was lost in transit by the Postal authorities. As such the negligence is that of the Postal authorities and not of the appellant- bank who in good faith despatched the Bank draft in ordinary process of business of the bank. 3. Additional plea of the appellant-bank in its reply to complaint was again that since the aforesaid amount of 700 sterling pounds has been refunded to the appellant on 13.7.2001 vide Annexure R-1, therefore, nothing served in the complaint which was liable to be dismissed. 4. Grievance of the respondent on the other hand is, that till date his client has not received any thing, as such the stand to the contrary regarding payment by the bank is not correct. District Forum below after hearing the parties has held that the appellant-bank liable to make the payment of 700 sterling pounds with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the dated of deposit till the payment was made besides litigation cost of Rs. District Forum below after hearing the parties has held that the appellant-bank liable to make the payment of 700 sterling pounds with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the dated of deposit till the payment was made besides litigation cost of Rs. 1500/- This has resulted in filing of the present appeal before us, wherein M.A. No. 382/2004 has been filed for impleading the aforesaid postal authority as well as the Bank of India. 5. This application in our opinion is totally mis-conceived, keeping in view the stand of the appellant-Bank that the amount stands already paid to the respondent, even after the draft in question having been lost in transit. This is the stand of the appellant in preliminary objection No.3 as well as in additional plea in its reply to the complaint before the District Forum, below. Once payment of the draft is pleaded, therefore is no need to implead the above referred parties. In case appellant has any remedy in law against both of them, then it can prosecute if as per. But in the appeal before us they are neither necessary nor proper parties in this appeal. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances present application merits rejection. Ordered accordingly. 7. Faced with this situation Mr. Sharma submitted .that there is no negligence, because in as much as good faith, his client had sent the draft in question for collection to the Bank of India as Bombay and it was lost by the postal authorities. If this was the factual position, then the stand of his client that the amount already stands paid is self contradictory and mutually destructive in view its reply to the complaint. On what date the amount was paid/credited to the account of the respondent, there is not a word said in its reply by the appellant. If this was factual position, then the appellant could produce account statement of the respondent. At least date of payment / deposit could mentioned in the reply, this assumes significance because the learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that his client has not received even a single penny till date. 8. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- besides Rs. 10,000/- for harassment caused to the respondent. 8. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- besides Rs. 10,000/- for harassment caused to the respondent. Before parting with this case we may clarify that if the appellant bank has any remedy under any law for the time being in force against the proposed parties to recover amount, this order will not come in its way. No costs.