Nandlal Madanlal Zawer vs Chairman, State Bank Of India & Anr.

The complainant/petitioner had a current account with the respondent bank. A cheque of Rs.12,65,000/- was deposited by him in the aforesaid account on 21.09.2012. The cheque was drawn on Union Bank of India, Lohapatti, Kolkata. The cheque was sent by the respondent bank to its service branch at Kolkata for presenting the same to the bank of the drawer. The cheque, however, was lost in transit. Alleging negligence on the part of the respondent bank in rendering services to him the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking the amount of the afore-said cheque from the bank along-with compensation etc.

The complaint was resisted by the bank which admitted the deposit of cheque in the account of the complainant and also admitted that the cheque was lost in transit. It was, however, stated that there was no deliberate negligence on the part of the bank.

The District Forum directed the respondent bank to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from its order failing which the afore-said amount was to carry interest @ 6/% p.a. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded to the complainant as the cost of litigation.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of appeal. The order passed by the District Forum was not challenged by the bank. The appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant having been dismissed by the State Commission he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition primarily seeking enhancement of the compensation.

A noted earlier, it is an admitted position that a cheque of Rs.12,65,000/- was deposited by the petitioner/complainant in his account with the respondent bank. It was for the respondent bank to take due care and precaution while sending the cheque to its service branch at Kolkata for encashment. The negligence on the part of the respondent bank is obvious since according to the service branch the envelope was empty when received by it and did not have cheque in it. Therefore, the negligence happened either in the branch where the cheque was deposited or in the service branch of the bank at Kolkata. Either way, the bank as an institution is responsible and accountable for the aforesaid negligence.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, though the petitioner/complainant wants the bank to pay the amount of the cheque i.e. Rs.12,65,000/- to him with interest, the said relief cannot be granted to him. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the cheque was issued by its drawer towards payment of the goods sold by the petitioner/complainant to him. If this is so, nothing prevented the petitioner for recovering the price of the goods from the purchaser who was also the drawer of the cheque. The complainant/petitioner has not even alleged in the consumer complaint that the amount of the cheque was not recovered by him from the drawer of the cheque, who had purchased the goods from him. There is no evidence of the petitioner/complainant having even sent a notice to the drawer of the cheque, requesting him to issue another cheque or to pay the amount of the cheque which the bank had lost in transit. The period of limitation for recovering the amount of the cheque by way of a civil suit would be three years from the date of the cheque. The petitioner/complainant had come to know about loss of the cheque within less than 6 months of the issuance of the cheque. Therefore, he ought to have taken recourse to the legal proceedings for recovery of the amount of the cheque from its drawer. In fact it cannot be verified whether the amount of the cheque has been recovered by the petitioner/complainant from its drawer or not. No civil suit was filed by the petitioner/complainant for recovery of the afore-said amount from the drawer of the cheque. No effort was made by him to summon the drawer of the cheque as a witness to prove that the amount of the cheque had not been paid by him to the petitioner/complainant. In the ordinary course of human conduct the petitioner/complainant would have recovered the amount of the cheque from its drawer either by taking another cheque in lieu of the misplaced cheque or by some other mode of payment. The afore-said inference finds credence from the fact that the complainant/petitioner did not even try to summon the drawer of the cheque as a witness to prove that the amount of the cheque had not been paid by him to the petitioner/complainant.

However, since the respondent bank has been negligent in rendering services to the complainant/petitioner, adequate and fair compensation needs to be paid by the respondent bank to the petitioner/complainant. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent bank is directed to pay additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant/petitioner within three months from today failing which the afore-said amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order. The revision petition stands disposed of.