Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 643 (JK)

State Bank Of India v. Abjeet Dhar

2009-12-15

B.L.Saraf, G.D.Sharma

body2009
G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. Order dated 05.9.2007 passed by the learned Divisional Consumer Protection Forum Jammu, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum) has been challenged in the abovesaid appeals. Learned Forum passed common order in complaint Nos. 519 to 522/2001 and granted the following relief:- In complaint No. 519/2001 (Appeal No. 2926/2007), appellant No. 2 herein was directed to credit an amount of Rs.14000/- in the account of complainant, Abjeet Dhar, alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. w.e.f. April 1999 till realisation as the cheque was returned by State Bank of India Service Branch New Delhi on 24.3.1999, through Skypack Courier Ltd. 2. In complaint No. 520/2001 (Appeal No. 2927/2007), appellant No. 2 herein was directed to credit an amount of Rs. 14000/- in the account of complainant, Sarla Shivpuri, alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. w.e.f. April 1999 till realisation as the cheque was returned by State Bank of India Service Branch New Delhi on 24.3.1999, through Skypack Courier Ltd. 3. In complaint No.521/2001 (Appeal No. 2929/2007), appellant No. 2 herein was directed to credit an amount of Rs. 10000/- in the account of complainant, Charoo Nayna, alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. w.e.f. April 1999 till realisation as the cheque was returned by State Bank of India Service Branch New Delhi on 24.3.1999, through Skypack Courier Ltd. 4. In complaint No. 522/2001 (Appeal No. 2928/2007), appellant No. 2 herein was directed to credit an amount of Rs. 12000/- in the account of complainant, Dr. R.L. Dhar, alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. w.e.f. April 1999 till realisation as the cheque was returned by State Bank of India Service Branch New Delhi on 24.3.1999,through Skypack Courier Ltd. 5. Litigation charges in the amount of Rs. 1000/- were granted in favour of each of the respondent to be paid by appellant No. 2. 6. R.L. Dhar, alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. w.e.f. April 1999 till realisation as the cheque was returned by State Bank of India Service Branch New Delhi on 24.3.1999,through Skypack Courier Ltd. 5. Litigation charges in the amount of Rs. 1000/- were granted in favour of each of the respondent to be paid by appellant No. 2. 6. In the memo of appeals the appellants have taken the following grounds:- 1- that there was no relationship of respondents No. 1 to 4 herein with the appellants of consumer and service provider 2- that the appellant No. 2 was only a collecting Bank and the cheques in question were sent to the drawee-Bank, respondent No. 5, where the amounts of the cheques were collected because no amount was available in drawers accounts (M/S Kubar Mutual Benefit Ltd); 3- that the cheques in question were lost in transit and respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to recover the amounts of the cheques in question from the drawers; 4- That it was not a case of deficiency in rendering service but a dispute of civil nature, which should have been referred to a civil court. 7. Heard the arguments of Mr. M.P. Gupta the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. While reiterating the grounds of memo of appeals stated above, he has argued that the appellants have not received any service charges from respondents in all the appeals, so there was no relationship of consumer and service provider. In support of his contention, he has cited 2005(CIJ) 1173 (CP SCDRC). In that case State Commission, Kerala has held that where a cheque is deposited in the bank for collection and credited to the complainant's account is lost or misplaced and the cheque is not encashed by any body, the complainant could proceed against the drawer. He has also cited the case of State Bank of Patiala v. Vishwas Ahuja (2007 (1)ISJ (banking)432 wherein it is held that when two cheques were deposited with the petitioner-bank for collection and the petitioner had sent these cheques to Punjab National Bank (drawee bank) through courier and the cheques were lost in transit, it was held that it was a case of civil liability against the drawer of the cheques and the bank was entitled to the grant of compensation which was granted in the sum of Rs. 5000/-. 9. 5000/-. 9. We have scanned the record and find that nowhere respondents 1 to 4 of the abovesaid appeals have proved that the amounts of the cheques in question have been drawn. It means the liability of the drawer remains intact. The only factual matrix which has emerged is that the appellants have failed to prove whether the cheques have been lost. In this view of the matter, while relying upon the law laid down by SCDRC Kerala (supra) which is based upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we accept the appeals and modify the impugned orders in question to the extent that the appellants are only liable to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 4 herein these appeals, quantified In the amount of Rs. 4000/- each. The appeals are consigned to records and record of the D.F. be returned at once.