BANK OF BARODA Vs. DEVI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties against the order of District Forum, Ganganagar dated 5.1.93 whereby the District Forum allowed interest on the amount of Rs.20,000/- @ 12% per annum for delayed payment of the amount of the Bank Draft for two months apart from Rs.100/ for correspondence charges, Rs.300/- as costs of the complaint and Rs.500/- as compensation for mental distress and agony.

(2.) On 25.6.92 Devi Das-complainant filed Complaint Case No.356/92 before District Forum, Ganganagar against Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch, 31-C Block, Ganganagar and its Head Office Baroda with the averments that it had on 25.2.92 obtained a Bank Draft of Rs.20,000/- from the aforesaid Ganganagar Branch of Baroda in the name of his son who was residing at Faridabad. The Bank Draft was to be encashed by the Nehru Place Branch of Bank of Baroda at Faridabad. The complainant sent the Bank Draft to his son at Faridabad. However, his son Harish Chandra did not receive the Bank Draft since it was lost in transit by the postal authorities. When son of the complainant informed regarding non-receipt of the Bank Draft, the complainant on 9.3.92 made an application to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ganganagar Branch for issue of a duplicate Bank Draft, and his son also instructed the Nehru Place Branch of Bank of Baroda not to encash the Bank Draft in case it was presented by someone else. Opposite party No.1 told to the complainant that it can issue the duplicate Bank Draft only upon receipt of information from Nehru Place Branch that the Bank Draft had not been encashed. The opposite party No.1 instead of sending letter to Nehru Place Branch of the Bank at Faridabad regarding matter, wrongly sent the letter to another Branch. Subsequently letter was sent by opposite party No.1 to Nehru Place Branch at Faridabad and that Branch informed that the Bank Draft had not been encashed. The complainant again approached the Ganganagar Branch and told the Branch Manager that he was in need of the amount urgently and, therefore, duplicate Bank Draft maybe issued without any delay. Opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to furnish a bond on non-judicial stamp of Rs.50/- and then the duplicate will be issued. The complainant furnished the bond on the requisite stamp, but duplicate Bank Draft was not issued and it was told that the bond should be signed by the person in whose favour the original Bank Draft got issued and signatures of that person should be verified by an official of the Bank in which he had a Bank Account. The complainant thereupon sent the bond document to his son Harish Chandra. His son went to the Branch Manager Canara Bank to verify his signatures on the bond, but the Branch Manager of Canara Bank told that he cannot verify signatures on the papers for the purpose of obtaining duplicate copy of the Bank Draft. He also told that there was no necessity for signatures for obtaining duplicate copy of the Bank Draft. On 13.5.92 the complainant contacted opposite party No.1 and told him that there was no necessity of signatures of the person in whose name the Bank Draft was issued. The opposite party No.1 told that the duplicate will be issued in a day or two. However the same was not issued and ultimately on 17.6.92, the amount of the Bank Draft was paid to the complainant in cash. On the basis of these averments, the complainant claimed interest on the amount of Rs.20,000/-from 25.2.92 to 17.6.92@18%perannum apart from Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony and correspondence charges etc.

(3.) The opposite parties filed their version before the District Forum in which it was stated that it was explained to the complainant that when Bank Draft is issued, it becomes the property of the person in whose favour the same is issued. It was also explained to him that the Bank had its rules with respect to the issue of duplicate copy of the Bank Draft and duplicate Bank Draft can only be issued on compliance with those rules. According to the rules, both the payee and the purchaser have to execute indemnity bond to the effect that the Bank Draft had been lost and if it was later on found, the same would be returned to the Bank. Despite that the complainant did not complete the formality although the payee of the Bank Draft amount was his own son. When the complainant after completing the formalities presented the indemnity bond on nonjudicial stamp of Rs.50/- and the duplicate Bank Draft was prepared, then the complainant told that amount may be paid to him in cash. Accordingly, the duplicate Bank Draft prepared was cancelled and the amount was paid in cash to the complainant on 17.6.92. It was, therefore, said that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.