EISH MADHU TALWAR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant Eish Madhu Talwar had delivered to the Opposite Party a cheque No.30051063 for 29 for collection from Barclays Bank, London and for being credited in his Credit Saving Account No.7395 with the Opposite Party. This cheque was delivered on 7.8.91. Although the Complainant visited the Opposite Party Bank several times but he was only falsely assured that the receipt of the cheque would be realised soon. The Complainant made a complaint to the Regional Manager of the Central Bank of India with a copy to the Reserve Bank of India on 27.4.92. Thereupon suddenly the Opposite Party sent a letter on 27.7.92 stating to the Complainant that Barclays Bank had desired a photo copy of the cheque or full particulars of the instrument namely; serial number, date of issue, name of the drawer and drawyee Bank to enable the Opposite Party to puruse the matter with Barclays Bank. The Complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,03,015/- with interest at 18% p. a.

(2.) The Opposite Party has filed a version in which it is admitted that the Complainant had delivered the above cheque of 29 for collection. According to the Opposite Party, it had sent the cheque to the Branch of the Central Bank of India at Sansar Chandra Road and that Branch sent the cheque for collection to London by registered post vide receipt No.3974 dated 30.9.91. However, it appears to the Opposite Party that the cheque was lost during postal transit and did not reached London. The Opposite Party sent reminder to Barclays Bank, but the later Bank informed that the cheque was not received and required a photo copy of the cheque and the Complainant did not sent the photo copy of the cheque, its collection could not be realised. The Opposite Party has also said that the Complainant is not a consumer as he has closed his account with the Opposite Party before this complaint was filed by him. It is said that there was no deficiency in service and Postal Department was a necessary party.

(3.) It may be mentioned that appearance was put on behalf of the Complainant upto 24.9.93 hut thereafter the Complainant did not appear. The Opposite Party was given opportunity to file affidavits in evidence. On 27.4.94, Counsel for the Opposite Party stated that the Opposite Party does not want to give any further affidavit as the same has already been given alongwith the reply. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party and perused the record.