LIBERTY LEATHERS GHARAUNDA vs Punjab National Bank

M/s. Liberty Leathers, Gharaunda, the unsuccessful complainants appeal against the order of the District Forum, Karnal dismissing their case.

THE fact, are not in serious dispute. THE appellants presented a cheque apparently dated the 22nd of November, 1992 to the respondent-Punjab National Bank at their branch at Karnal for onwards transmission and collection at Jalandhar. THE allegation was that the said cheque was wilfully forwarded for onward collection by the respondent-bank of the 22nd of May, 1993, when its validity had expired on completion of six months from the date of its issuance. Inevitably, the amount was not collected and aggrieved thereby the appellants preferred the complaint seeking the principal amount of the cheque alongwith interest thereon. THE respondent-bank in defending the complaint, strenuously pressed the preliminary objection that the cheque has been accepted for collection in accordance with the clear condition printed as No. 2 on the pay-in-slip that it would not be at all liable for any delay in collection, transmission and otherwise, with regard to any remittance until the same is received and realised. On merits the stand was that in fact the complainant was himself patently negligent in not presenting the cheque for collection nearly six months from the date of its issuance. The District Forum took the view that the bank stood fully protected by virtue of the admitted condition No. 2 on the pay-in-slip and further that the appellants had themselves been patently remiss in presenting the cheque at the very fag end of its validity and when the time, there for was due to expire. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

Mr. M.S. Kohli, the learned Counsel for the appellants faced with an uphill task had persistently argued that the appellants were not bound to explain the reason for not presenting the cheque for well-nigh five months and 21 days from the date of its issuance. It was submitted that the condition on the pay slip was arbitrary and could not protect the bank and further that the forwarding of cheque on the 22nd was per se negligent.

WE are afraid that there is no modi-cum of merit in the aforesaid submission. Despite being firmly pin-pointed, Mr. Kohli was unable to point out any statutory or other rule or regulation, prescribing the time within which the presented cheque is to be sent for onward transmission. Indeed it had to be ultimately conceded that there was no such mandated period for the forwarding of a cheque for collection. Now once that is so, it would be obvious that the respondent-bank had not undertaken any commitment to despatch the cheque for collection forthwith. Obviously, a deficiency in banking service can arise only for conduct contrary to an agreed or a binding stipulation. There admittedly being none on the point of time within which the cheque was to be despatched, one cannot possibly hold the respondent-bank per-se liable for any default in this context. Apparently bereft of any firm foundation. Mr. Kohli had then vaguely attempted to argue that there was a banking practice with regard to the forwarding of the cheques for collection. Plainly enough, no such plea was taken before the District Forum nor any practice of this nature established on the record. Even before us apart from baldly asserting such a practice, learned Counsel was unable to show any clear pointer, therefor. The mere assertion of an alleged banking practice is thus too vague a base for any meaningful legal relief.

LASTLY the reliance of the District Forum on condition No. 2 admittedly printed on the pay-in-slip itself was patently justifiable. The said condition deserves notice in extenso: "You are authorised to send the cheque/ draft by ordinary post. Neither you not the agent will be responsible for any loss, due to loss or mis-carriage of the cheque/ draft or for any delay in collection transmission and otherwise of any remittance by the agent until the same is received and realised by you or error in any telegram exchanged between you and of your office or with the agent."

A plain reading of the above would show that the bank in extending out its services had adequately safe-guarded its position with regard to the collection of the negotiable instrument. In view of the same, one cannot thrust upon them a liability beyond what they had undertaken. Mr. Kohli''s stand that the said condition was arbitrary and nonest has only to be noticed and rejected. For the fore-going reasons, the order of the District Forum has necessarily to be up-held and this appeal dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.