MOHD AYUB Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this case is whether the bank which received the cheque, misplaced the same and could not ensure credit of the amount to the payee for six months after its receipt amounts to deficiency of service. The obvious answer is yes. Brief facts are as follows :

(2.) The complainant on 25.11.1989 presented a cheque No. 138714508 of US Dollars 1400.92 issued from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian General Organisation for Social Insurance in favour of the complainant before the opposite party - Manager, Central Bank of India, Goryakothi Branch. The validity period of the instrument was six months. The Goryakothi Branch had forwarded this cheque through its main office to the Citi Bank at Mumbai for collection vide OCC No. 14/250 dated 25.11.1989. The complainant was regularly visiting the branch of the Central Bank of India to ascertain whether the proceeds of the cheque has been credited to his account but he was advised that the cheque has been misplaced at Bank premises at Mumbai and a request was made to the Citi Bank to inform whether it would be possible for the bank to secure payment from Citi Bank against the indemnity. The Citi Bank did not respond positively. It is later on learnt that there was an order for stop payment by the originator on 26.5.1990. As the amount was not paid to him he filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that : From the correspondence placed on record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant is a consumer and even despite that he has not been able to get the payment. It appears that the said bank draft was counter-manded on 26.5.1991 and, therefore, the bank did not pay. It may be noted that only a conclusion has been reached about the counter-manding without any reasons, whatsoever. It may be noted that the complainant took steps well in time so that the opposite party is in a position to collect the money and pay the same to the complainant/consumer or credit the same in the account of the complainant. The validity of the draft for payment has expired due to the negligence of the opposite party bank, and, therefore, the responsibility for counter-manding of the draft is on opposite party's bank. It is a matter of regret that a long period has elapsed and so far the draft has not been paid to the complainant. The opposite party's bank is directed to pay to the applicant amount in Indian currency equivalent to US Dollar 1400.92 within one month from the date of this order. If the bank fails to make the payment within the stipulated period, in that event, the opposite party should make payment of interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the draft amount with effect from 6.8.1994. If the payment is not made within the above period, the applicant is also entitled to costs from the opposite party. The applicant is not entitled to any other amount. The opposite party's bank is free to take any administrative action against the staff. The applicant's application is admitted to the extent, as directed above.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Siwan had filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties passed the following order: Having gone through the letters produced on behalf of the appellant particularly latest letter dated 14.5.2004 we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to receive any payment with regard to the above two drafts which was deposited by him with the appellant because the originator has stopped its payment as early as 26.9.1990. In the fact and circumstances, the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside. In the fact and circumstances, no order as to cost. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: