Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 369 (UTT)

Corporation Bank v. N. C. S. Films

2006-07-17

K.S.GUPTA, P.D.SHENOY

body2006
ORDER Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member: This revision is directed against the order dated 10.9.2004 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad disposing of appeal reducing the rate of interest from 15% to 12% p.a. against the order dated 11.10.2001 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs. 50,000 with interest @ 15% p.a. w.e,f. 20.6.1994 and cost to the respondent/ complainant. 2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Respondent had a current account No. 276 with the petitioner bank. Cheque bearing No. 844418 dated 14.4.1994 for Rs. 50,000 of Andhra Bank, T. Nagar Branch, Madras issued by M/s. Savithri Movies Madras, deposited in the said account for collection on 20.6.1994 by the respondent. By the letter dated 22.11.1994 respondent was intimated by the petitioner that the said cheque was lost in transit. Respondent, thus, was requested to obtain a duplicate cheque and send it to the petitioner for collection. Drawer allegedly refused to issue a fresh cheque. Responding served a legal notice demanding the amount covered by the said cheque to which reply dated 26.8.1994 was sent by the bank, Complaint was thereafter filed by the respondent seeking payment of said amount with interest as it was unable to realise the amount of cheque due to the fault of the petitioner. Complaint was contested by the petitioner. In written version it was not denied that respondent was having current account No. 276 with the bank. It was alleged that on receipt of cheque dated 14.4.1994 on 4.5.1994 the petitioner sent it immediately to Madras for collection. Andhra Bank, T. Nagar, Madras returned the cheque with the endorsement dated 7.5.1994 that there was no sufficient fund in the account of drawer and respondent was intimated accordingly. Respondent again presented the cheque for collection and petitioner sent it on 22.6.1994 to Andhra Bank, T. Nagar, Madras. However, the cheque was lost in transit and could not be traced. Respondent was intimated of the cheque having been lost in transit through the letter dated 22.11.1994. It was further alleged that the account of drawer was inoperative since the date of dishonour of cheque i.e. 7.5.1994 and even if the cheque would have been presented for payment again it could not have been paid. Respondent was intimated of the cheque having been lost in transit through the letter dated 22.11.1994. It was further alleged that the account of drawer was inoperative since the date of dishonour of cheque i.e. 7.5.1994 and even if the cheque would have been presented for payment again it could not have been paid. It was denied that petitioner is liable to pay the amount of cheque with interest and/or compensation as claimed. 3. Maintaining by the respondent of current account No. 276; depositing of cheque in question in that account for collection, cheque having been lost in transit and respondent having been intimated of the loss by the petitioner bank by the letter dated 22.11.1994 are not in dispute. In written version, petitioner alleged that the cheque in question was earlier deposited for collection on 4.5.1994 and was returned by Andhra Bank, T. Nagar, Madras with the endorsement dated 7.5.1994 that there was no sufficient fund in the account of drawer M/s. Savithri Movies. It is further alleged Jhat the account of drawer was in-operative since 7.5.1994 itself and even if the cheque was presented again it could not have been paid as there was no amount available in the account of said drawer. In support of this plea, Ms. Somati Anand for petitioner invited our attention to the cheque return memo dated 7.5.1994 (copy at page 28) and letter dated 15.9.1995 sent by the said branch of Andhra Bank to the petitioner (copy at page 30). Bare perusal of these documents would show that the cheque in question was returned for insufficient fund on 7.5.94 and account of the said drawer (CD 6672) was not in operation since 7.5.1994. Though these two documents were not filed by the petitioner bank before the District Forum but their genuineness cannot be doubted. These are evener erred to in the written version. In interest of justice these are taken note of while deciding the present revision petition. Loss of cheque in question in transit was brought to the notice of respondent well within 3 years period of its issue. It was thus open to the respondent to have filed suit for recovery of the amount of cheque against M/s. Savithri Movies-drawer. In interest of justice these are taken note of while deciding the present revision petition. Loss of cheque in question in transit was brought to the notice of respondent well within 3 years period of its issue. It was thus open to the respondent to have filed suit for recovery of the amount of cheque against M/s. Savithri Movies-drawer. Complaint under C.P Act, 1986 can be filed only for compensation based on deficiency in service arising out of loss of cheque in transit but not for recovery of the entire cheque amount. This has also been the view taken by this Commission in the decision in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajinder Lal & Anr. IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC). Particularly, taking note of the facts that cheque in question was dishonored for insufficient fund on 7.5.1994 and drawer's account was lying inoperative since then, we quantify the amount of compensation payable by petitioner bank at Rs. 10,000. Order under challenge, therefore, cannot be sustained legally. Accordingly, while allowing revision the orders passed by For a below are modified and petitioner bank is directed to pay amount of Rs. 10,000 by way of compensation for deficiency in service on its part to the respondent. This amount will be remitted through a demand draft to the respondent within three weeks of the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to cost. Revision allowed.