CANARA BANK Vs. SUDHIR AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision is directed against the order dated 18. 11. 2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttaranchal, Dehradun allowing appeal against the order dated 8. 8. 2003 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner/opposite party bank to pay Rs. 14,040 being the value of cheque to the respondent/complainant. Holding the petitioner bank deficient in service the District Forum had ordered the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 2,000 as compensation to the respondent.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. M/s. Geeta Miniature Bulb Industry whereof respondent was the proprietor, was maintaining current account number 3225 with the petitioner. Cheque No. 682845 of Rs. 14,040 drawn on Dena Bank, Mumbai was deposited in that account on 25. 1. 2001 for collection. On amount of cheque not being credited in account nor cheque returned, the respondent filed complaint claiming amount of Rs. 20,000 which was contested by the petitioner. Maintaining of the account by the firm and deposit of cheque of Rs. 14,040 on 25. 1. 2001 for collection by respondent were not disputed. However, it was alleged that the firm has already received the amount of the cheque. Complaint was incompetent as not having been filed by the proper person and it was also bad for non-joinder of Dena Bank as a party.

(3.) RELYING on the decision in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal and Another, IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC), the submission advanced by Mr. Pankaj Gupta for petitioner is that a bank on ground of deficiency in service can be burdened with some compensation but it cannot be made to pay the entire amount of cheque and the order of State Commission being erroneous deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the submission advanced by Mr. Sushant Mukund for respondent is that the defence of the bank was that the amount of the cheque in question had been received by the respondent but from the affidavit dated 12. 1. 2004 filed before the State Commission by the respondent it is established that the amount of cheque was not received by the respondent and the remedy for realization of the amount of cheque in question by the respondent has, now, become barred by limitation. Deposit of the cheque for collection of amount thereof on 25. 1. 2001 is admitted by the petitioner Bank. Since the amount of cheque was not credited in said account nor the cheque which seem to have been misplaced in transit, was returned to the respondent, the petitioner bank was certainly deficient in service. It is not in dispute that the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 25. 4. 2001. Copy of written statement filed by the bank on record would show that it was verified on 20. 9. 2001. Written version, thus, must have been filed thereafter sometime in September, 2001 itself. Obviously, by the time the complaint and written version were filed the respondent had become aware of the loss of cheque. Remedy of the respondent to file suit based on original consideration of the cheque was within limitation period by then. For recovery of amount of a cheque, a complaint would bot lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'act' ). Therefore, on ground of deficiency in service the bank can be ordered to pay the compensation and not the entire amount of the cheque. To the same effect is the ratio of the decision in Rajender Lal's case (supra ). Submission referred to above, advanced on behalf of respondent has no relevance on the issue on hand. Order of State Commission requiring the petitioner to pay the entire amount of the cheque in question cannot be legally sustained. In the facts and circumstance of case, we quantify the amount of compensation payable to the respondent at Rs. 5,000.