State Bank of India vs VANIJYA VIKASH

THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 5.3.1993 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sonitpur at Tezpur in C.P.A. Case No. 11 of 1992. By the impugned judgment, the compensation was awarded for the payment of interest @ 12% for a period of 13 days on the cheque amount of Rs. 2,86,260/- (in the judgment it has been wrongly stated for the amount is Rs. 2,66,260/-).

THE brief facts are that a cheque for the aforesaid amount was issued by the Military Authority to be drawn at the State Bank of India, Rangapara Branch. THE complainant is an account holder of State Bank of India, Tezpur Branch. He deposited the cheque with the State Bank of India, Tezpur Branch on 4.4.1992 for collection of the cheque with a letter requesting the Branch Manager, Tezpur to allow hand clearance of the cheque from their Rangapara Branch of the Bank through their representative Sri Shivpujan Singh by duly attesting his signature therein. That prayer was allowed. It is stated that this man went to Rangapara to bring the payment on 7.4.1992, but the Branch Manager of Rangapara Branch refused to give hand clearance payment advice of the cheque to said Shivpujan Singh. THEreafter the payment was received on 21.4.1992. To give and not to give the hand clearance of a cheque or a particular cheque is the discretion of the Branch Manager of the Bank inasmuch as the Branch Manager has a risk in such a matter and he may exercise his discretion in appropriate case. Thereafter the payment advice was sent by Rangapara Branch by registered letter dated 11.4.1992 to the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Tezpur Branch and that letter was handed over to the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India of Tezpur Branch on 20.4.1992 and as indicated the payment was made on 21.4.1992. So, we find that there was no inordinate delay in making the payment. The only question is that whether it was obligatory on the part of the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India to give hand clearance with regard to the payment advice. That he refused. As indicated above, for that no fault can be found with him.

In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the District Forum, Sonitpur at Tezpur shall stand quashed and the claim filed by the claimant shall stand dismissed. We have heard Mr. S. L. Jain, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal allowed. ___________________