AJOY TRADING CO Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the Appellant is that he is a proprietor of M/s. Ajay Trading Company carrying on business for Motor parts and various other goods relating to Motor vehicles. That pursuant to an order placed by the respondent No.4 for supply and delivery of various type of motor parts and accessories, the appellant supplied the same at Baranasi through the carrier of their choice. The respondent No.4 supplied a Demand Draft for Rs.35,885/- purchased through the respondent No.5 being the sister concern and deposited that the same against the delivery of goods to the said Transporter namely Transport Corporation of India which forwarded the said demand draft for Rs.35,885/- to the Appellant/complainant. The petitioner having received the said Demand Draft put in this account on 3rd December/1990 for due encashment but the bank, the respondent No.2 refused to give any credit effect of the said Demand Draft on the ground that the Demand Draft is being reported to be lost. It is alleged that after handing over the Demand Draft by the respondent No; 5 to M/s. Transport Corporation of India against delivery of the materials lodged a complaint with the respondent No.3 that the Demand Draft in question is lost accordingly the respondent No.3 sent a message to respondent No.2 informing about the loss of the captioned demand draft. The respondent No.5 although instructed to respondent No.3 for duplicate issue of the said demand draft and upon such instruction and receipt of non-payment certificate from the respondent No.2 in Calcutta issued a duplicate draft bearing No.306286 to the respondent No.5. Prior to issue of the said duplicate Demand Draft of the respondent No.3 asked the respondent No.5 to submit one Indemnity Bond which was duly complied with. Again on 1.12.90, the respondent No.5 wrote a letter to the respondent No.3 to cancel the said duplicate Demand Draft and to credit the proceed thereof to the Over Draft account held by the respondent No.5, accordingly the respondent No.5 duly surrendered the duplicate draft to the respondent No.3 which upon receipt of the duplicate demand draft from the respondent No.5 cancelled the same and credited the sum of Rs.35,885/- in the over draft account of the respondent No.5. Further to that the respondent No.5 wrote other two letters one dated 18.12.90 and another dated 27.6.91 confirming the loss of the original Demand Draft on transit and also to issue the duplicate Demand Draft at their request and upon such request of the respondent No.5, the respondent No.3 cancelled the duplicate Demand Draft and credited the same amount to the over draft account of the respondent No.5. It is contended by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 that the actions taken by them are perfectly legal and bona fide and as such the question of fault or negligence on the part of the bank does not arise at all and while crediting the sum of Rs.35,885/- being the amount of the duplicate Demand Draft was credited in its over draft account the respondent No.3 got the duplicate Demand Draft duly endorsed by the respondent No.5 about the receipt of refund of the amount of the draft. So the refund of said sum of Rs.35,885/- to the respondent No.5 at his instruction was quite legal and valid. It was further stated by the respondent No.3 that the respondent No.5 while cancelling the duplicate Demand Draft specifically informed that the payment of the Appellant/complainant has been made by cash as such the duplicate Demand Draft was no longer required and demanded refund of the same and pursuant to such demand, the respondent No.3 cancelled the said Demand Draft and credited the said amount in the overdraft account of the respondent No.5 by way of refund. According to the banking rules, the bank is obliged to act of the advise of the customer and non else as such the respondent No.5 being the customer of the bank always acted on advice of it and did not wrong, judgment

(2.) It appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that the disputed question of payment of Rs.35,885/- to the appellant is a matter which could not be adjudicated before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum because we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the bank. The bank is bound to act on the advice of his customer inasmuch as the respondent No.5 being the customer of the bank, advise from time to time and the bank acting on, said advices did not commit any wrong. Particularly in view that when the drawer of Demand Draft lodged complaint about the loss of the Demand Draft the bank could not allow anybody to draw the same until the clearance is given from the drawer of the same. Secondly at the instance of the drawer when the bank issued the duplicate Demand Draft for the same amount and handed over to the drawer, the respondent No.5. But subsequently when the respondent No.5 adviced to cancel the Demand Draft after its due production before the Bank, the bank had no other alternative but to cancel the Demand Draft and to credit the proceed of the said Demand Draft in the account of the respondent No.5 which specifically and categorically stated before cancelling the said duplicate Demand Draft as per letter dt.18.12.90 Annexure 'f' to the written objection, that it had paid the dues of the complainant/appellant in cash. So if there is anything wrong or fraudulent action on the part of the respondent No.5 that could not be adjudicated by this Consumer Redressal Forum. The only course to decide such controversial question is the Civil or Criminal Court and as such we are unable to uphold the contention of the appellant/complainant. All actions of the bank are in conformity with the banking rules and laws. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal on contest without any cost. Liberties are granted to the appellant/complainant to file a Civil Suit before the appropriate Civil Court if they so desire.