TARUN KUMAR KANIYALAL SONI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before us, who was the complainant before the State Commission, has impugned the Order of the State Commission on various grounds. The Bank had issued a draft in Kuwaiti Dinars in favour of the appellant payable by the Gulf Bank in Kuwait, but this was dishonoured. The State Commission held that the responsibility for the dishonour was that of the respondent-bank. According to the appellant the State Commission has failed to appreciate the gross negligence of the respondent-bank which caused a lot of inconvenience to the appellant at a time when he was very much in need of money. The appellant has asserted that he had to visit India from Kuwait to obtain payment of the dishonoured bank draft. In fact according to the appellant, it was not one bank draft but two successive bank drafts issued for the same transaction by the respondent-bank which were dishonoured causing him tremendous harm. He has also asserted that the compensation paid is not adequate and he was entitled to interest and full refund of the fixed deposits in foreign currency as they were NRI deposits.

(2.) FROM the perusal of the record and from the discussion during the hearing, the following facts emerged:

(3.) DURING the hearing, the appellant could not explain as to why he had not ascertained from his Bank in Kuwait the circumstances in which the first draft issued in February, 1990 was returned unpaid. The respondent-bank also could not explain the circumstances in which the first bank draft was issued on Bankers Trust Company, New York in U.S. Dollars when the appellant/complainant had requested for payment in Kuwaiti Dinars. It appeared that the respondent-bank's Kuwaiti Dinar account with the Kuwaiti Bank had been closed even at the time when the first draft was issued. This is bourne out by the documents filed in this case. It is seen that in February, 1990, the respondent-bank had requested the Bankers Trust Company, New York to honour the U.S. Dollar bank draft on presentation. When the re-%>oo4ent bank issued the bank draft for the second time in Kuwaiti Dinars on 16th of May, 1990 on the Kuwaiti Bank, it advised its correspondent bank in New York (Bankers Trust Company) to pay the amount to Citi Bank, New York for credit to the Gulf Bank, K.S.C. Kuwait as cover for the bank draft so issued for Kuwaiti Dinars 4,800 on the 16th of May, 1990 in favour of the appellant complainant. These documents amply establish that the respondent-bank had no account with the Kuwaiti Bank and if they had such an account at any point of time this was closed when these bank drafts were issued. That is why the respondent-bank was operating via New York. This leaves no room for doubt that the bank has been grossly negligent in serving the appellant/complainant. There is no doubt that considerable harassment and loss have been caused to the appellant/complainant who could not get the amount due to him when he needed it most and also within the time at his disposal while he was in India. We cannot also altogether ignore his statement that he had to make a trip to India to realise the amount on the second occasion.