STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR Vs. CANARA BANK
LAWS(RAJCDRC)-2007-9-1
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 25,2007

STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR Appellant
VERSUS
CANARA BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SUNIL KUMAR GARG,PRESIDENT - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants which were opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum against order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the District Forum, Churu in Complaint No. 41/05 by which the complaint of complainant respondent No. 2 was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 52,400 the amount of the cheque to the complainant respondent No. 2 and further to pay Rs. 2,000 as amount of compensation and Rs. 1,000 as amount of costs and the complaint against respondent No. 1 which was opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum was rejected.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the complainant respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint before the District Forum inter alia stating that he had deposited a cheque issued by Alrajhi Banking and Investment Corporation for Rs. 52,400 in the bank of the appellants on 11.8.2004 and that cheque was in the name of Canara Bank respondent No. 1. It was further stated that the appellants bank had sent the cheque through courier for clearance to respondent No. 1 but the cheque was lost in transit and, therefore, the amount of the cheque could not be received by the appellants bank from the Canara Bank and payment was not made and for that deficiency complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the appellants bank before the District Forum on 26.7.2005 inter alia stating that since the cheque in question had been lost in transit, therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the bank. Hence complaint be dismissed. No reply was filed by respondent No. 1 Canara Bank before the District Forum. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Churu through impugned order dated 26.10.2005 had allowed the complaint inter alia holding that full amount of the cheque was ordered to be paid by the appellants to complainant respondent No. 2. Aggrieved from the said order of the District Forum, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.
(3.) IN this appeal the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the findings by which the whole amount of the cheque was ordered to be paid by the appellants bank are erroneous one as in case of loss of cheque the amount of the lost cheque is not to be paid at the most compensation is to be paid and apart from that the Canara Bank is also responsible as the amount in question had been received by that bank especially when the cheque was issued by the Alrajhi Banking and Investment Corporation, Saudi Arabia and, therefore, Canara Bank must have been held responsible and thus appeal be allowed. On the other hand the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned order and admitted the fact that no reply was filed by respondent No. 1 before the District Forum.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.