CANARA BANK vs M RAMAJEYAM

THE first opposite party in C. O. P. No. 51 of 2001 on the file of the District Forum, Nagapattinam is the appellant herein.

THIS is a case where the complainant sought to take advantage of a mistake committed by the Bank in crediting his account with the value of a demand draft standing in somebody else''s name. The complainant had an S. B. Account with the opposite parties. One Pandarinathan had borrowed a loan from the complainant and he had given a demand draft drawn in his favour for Rs. 20,000. According to the complainant, the said demand draft was not crossed nor was there endorsement A/c payee. The said demand draft was presented on 30. 11. 2000. The challan was filled up by the security of the Bank. The amount was not credited in the account of the complainant. Attributing deficiency in service, the complaint came to be filed. The first opposite party filed a version which was adopted by the other opposite party. The demand draft was drawn in the name of Pandarinathan and account payee endorsement was found in the said demand draft. It was presented for collection and after realising the proceeds, it came to the notice of the Bank that the demand draft was not drawn in favour of the complainant. The amount was kept in suspense account. There was no deficiency in service.

Before the District Forum on the side of the complainant Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Ex. B1 was marked. The demand draft also was produced before the District Forum. The District Forum found that the first opposite party was deficient in service and directed the first opposite party to transfer the sum of Rs. 20,000 kept in suspense account and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of Rs. 1,000 with interest at 6% per annum.

IT is as against that the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel for the first opposite party/appellant submitted that admittedly the demand draft was not drawn in the name of the complainant, but in the name of one Pandarinathan. It had not been endorsed in favour of the complainant. Merely because without verifying the name of the account holder the instrument was sent for collection, it could not be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. In any event, Pandarinathan ought to have been made a party to the complaint. In case any claim was made by Pandarinathan, the Bank would be answerable. The Bank had kept it only in the suspense account.

THE reasoning of the District Forum is as follows : The Bank ought to have checked up before sending the demand draft for collection. If, as contended by the first opposite party, it was an account payee demand draft, the Bank employee ought to have returned the challan without accepting the demand draft for collection. Inasmuch as the opposite parties did not do that, it would amount to deficiency in service. The opposite parties had not explained as to how the demand draft was sent for collection. In that view of the matter, the District Forum directed the first opposite party to credit the said amount in the account of the complainant and also directed payment of compensation. In our view, the District Forum was clearly in error. There could be no motive attributed to the Bank. They had sent the demand draft for collection. It was realized that it was an account payee demand draft and the beneficiary was Pandarinathan and not the complainant. The mistake made by the Bank could not be taken advantage by the complainant. May be the complainant was illiterate, at the same time he could not get credit of an amount which technically he would not be entitled to because it was an account payee demand draft. In such circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the District Forum was in error in allowing the complaint. The District Forum omitted to note that the amount had been kept in suspense account and it had been done as a measure of caution and there is substance in the contention on behalf of the first opposite party that at some later point of time, it was possible that Pandarinathan could make a claim, that he would take the Bank to task for crediting some amount due to him in favour of the complainant. For all the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. The complainant has to seek his remedy against Pandarinathan. It is, however, open to the complainant to have the time taken in pursuing the matter before the Consumer Fora excluded. Appeal allowed.