HARI RAM GARG Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Factual matrix are that cheque for Rs. 4,00,000 drawn in favour of petitioner was presented by him to State Bank of Patiala at Mansa for collection of sum and crediting it in his account resting with the Bank. Even though cheque was deposited with respondent Bank on 10.8.2004, neither sum in question was credited to the account of the petitioner nor there was trace of the cheque. Alleging deficiency in service of respondent Bank, consumer complaint was filed seeking direction to respondent for credit of Rs. 4,00,000 to his account, apart from compensation and cost of proceeding. Complaint was resisted by respondent Bank holding that courier services which were availed by Bank for delivery of cheque in question to the collecting Bank had delivered the consignment on wrong address for which legal notice had been issued against courier service. District Forum, on appraisal of issue and also putting reliance on State Bank of Patiala's defence, while accepting complaint, putting reliance on Vishwas Ahuja's case, directed Bank to make good the loss of amount equal to the amount mentioned in the cheque i.e. Rs. 4,00,000 by depositing it with the account of the complainant. Information obtained by respondent Bank from ICIC1 Bank, where Sh. B.R.Bahlhadhis account andhad issued cheque in question, however, made startling disclosure

(2.) When the matter came in appeal before State Commission, it noticed the ratio of decision of National Commission given on 15.2.2005 in RP No. 310/2004 in the matter of State Bank of Patiala v. Vishwas Ahuja, which overruled finding of State Commission in Vishwas Ahuja's case and hence reversed the finding of District Forum, while accepting appeal.

(3.) There is no gainsaying the fact that in case of loss of cheque presented with Bank, the person presenting it, unless it is shown that the amount had been debited to the account of the person who had issued the cheque, was not entitled to compensation or claim the amount of the loss of cheque. However, to mitigate the sufferings of the person aggrieved, adequate compensation was permissible. Even if there would have been sufficient fund in his account to honour the cheque issued by him, even if the cheque would not have been lost, there could not have been satisfaction of the instrument issued in favour of the petitioner. That apart, no efforts appear to have been made by petitioner to approach Mr. Bahl apprising him of piquant situation which had arisen, for Bahl having no sufficient fund in his account to honour the cheque.