CANARA BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER Vs. I.V. RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant-Bank in O.S. No. 4820 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant. The plaintiff had a personal account with the Canara Bank Limited, at its Madras Branch hereinafter referred to as the Bank on 6th April, 1964. The plaintiff was the representative of a reputed group of concerns in Coimbatore, popularly known as M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company, Limited, Coimbatore, and its sister concerns at Madras. The group companies had a liaison office at Madras at No. 12/2, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Madras. There was a telephone in the Madras office of the group companies, which was apparently intended for the advantage and benefit of the sister concerns and which was in the sole administrative custody of the plaintiff. In the course of his official duties, the plaintiff gave a cheque for Rs. 294-40 towards the telephone bill for the aforesaid telephone admittedly standing in the name of the said M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited. This cheque was drawn on the personal account kept by the plaintiff with the defendant-bank. On 8th April, 1964 when the cheque came for clearance, the defendant did not honour the cheque, though the plaintiff had a sum of Rs. 652-83 to his credit in his account with the bank. On 24th April, 1964, the telephone department advised the plaintiff of the dishonour of the cheque. The plaintiff met the officials of the Bank on 28th April, 1964 and according to the defendant, the manager of the Madras Office of the Bank expressed regret for what all happened. It is said that the manager of the department approached the telephone department and requested them to re-present the cheque for payment. Apparently, the telephone department was not interested in such representation. As the telephone bill remained unpaid, the telephone was disconnected on 6th May, 1964. But on prompt steps taken by the plaintiff it was restored on 7th May 1964. The plaintiff tried, to explain to his employers the circumstances under which the cheque was dishonoured and how the telephone was disconnected and later restored. The plaintiff's employers, however, did not,, accept the explanation and on 15th June, 1964 the plaintiff's services were terminated. According to the plaintiff, he lost the job, which was fetching him a sum of Rs. 600 per mensem besides free boarding; and lodging and a car for his conveyance, on the sole ground that the plaintiff did not pay the telephone bill in time as a result of which the telephone was disconnected. The plaintiff says that the defendant was mainly responsible for not having honoured the cheque, when there was sufficient money to his credit and such negligence on the part of the defendant bank which was wilful resulted in himself being dismissed from the reputed group concerns of M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, Coimbatore. He would allege that but for this happening, he would have continued in the mill for a period of 10 years with better prospects and advantages and might have earned about Rs. 75,000 which had been lost once and for all. The plaintiff however, limited his claim for compensation or damages against the defendant-bank for loss of earnings for a period of five years, which he estimated at Rs. 36,000 and also claimed a sum of Rs. 14,000 for loss of prestige and status and for mental agony caused to him by losing his covetable job. As the plaintiff's notice of demand was not respected, he filed the present action in forma pauperis for recovery of Rs. 50,000 being the damages suffered by him because of the wrongful dishonour of the cheque by the Bank.

(2.) In the written statement the defendant admits that the plaintiff had a current account with its branch office at Thambu chetty Street, Madras, and that the plaintiff was working as the representative of Messrs. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited. They would concede that by mistake and oversight the cheque for Rs. 294-40 presented by the Telephone Department was dishonoured and that they expressed regret in person for the same and that they assured the plaintiff that they would inform the Telephone Department at Madras about the mistake and arrange for payment on re-presentation of the said cheque. They followed up the interview with the plaintiff, by phoning up the cash Department of the Madras Telephones and requested them that the cheque may be re-presented once again. They were informed that the Telephones Department would do so and hence they did not take any further steps. They also expected the plaintiff to forward another cheque to the Telephone Department with a request for the re-presentation of the same. They would allege that they have taken all possible and reasonable steps to arrange for payment of the cheque on re-presentation. According to the defendant, if the facts relating to the dishonour of the cheque was conveyed to the Managing Agents of M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, Coimbatore, and if, after all this, the Mills terminated the service without reference to the Bank, it was an arbitrary act on the part of the employers and would allege that the said termination of service and the damages claimed and said to have been suffered by the plaintiff cannot, in law and in fact, be said to flow naturally from the dishonouring of the cheque. They would deny that the plaintiff was entitled to the damages as claimed by him and would refer to certain incidents in 1963 and 1964 which would reflect upon the status of the plaintiff. In any event, they would say that the plaintiff did not take immediate steps to avert the consequence, which would flow from the dishonour of the cheque and mitigate the damages. The claim for Rs. 50,000 is excessive and unreasonable. The defendant would specifically plead that the plaintiff ought to have issued a fresh cheque on his account or utilised the other funds of his employer for paying the telephone bill and he, not having taken such steps, cannot claim the exaggerated amount of Rs. 50,000. The plaintiff filed replication and answered that the reference made by the Bank to his dealings in 1963-64 were irrelevant besides being incorrect. He would add that when the cheque issued towards the telephone bill of a reputed company was not honorured, it did react on the reputation of the company and it is only on account of the dishonour and the supervening disconnection of the telephone, that his services were terminated. The correspondence that ensued between the plaintiff and his employers will disclose how the principals were greatly upset by the dishonour of the cheque and the later disconnection of the telephone and would assert that the immediate and proximate cause for his termination of service is the wilful and negligent act of the dishonour of the cheque by the defendant-bank.

(3.) A supplemental written statement was also filed wherein again the defendant would reiterate their stand. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: