Advantage Consumer

Bank penalised for not returning the bounced cheque to the customer

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1176 OF 2015
(Against the Order dated 23/01/2015 in Appeal No. 324/2014 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)

RAGHUBIR SINGH ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT
     HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

Dated : 05 Mar 2019

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 23.1.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh at Pandri, Raipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.FA/14/324, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein had been dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum, Janjgir Champa, has been maintained.

Brief facts giving rise to the present Petition are that the Petitioner had a bank account with the Punjab National Bank, Respondent No.2. He had deposited a cheque of ₹3,00,000/- on 18.2.2009 with Respondent No.2. It appears that the said cheque was dishonoured and according to the Petitioner, no information was given by the bank regarding dishonour of the cheque nor the dishonoured cheque was returned. The Petitioner filed the Complaint on 10.2.2012 before the District Forum, Champa, Chhattisgarh. The Respondents herein filed their reply in which it was stated that the original cheque was sent to the Petitioner by Courier and he was also informed. The District Forum, on appreciation of evidence and material on record, partly allowed the Complaint by directing the Respondent Bank to pay a sum of ₹10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony as also ₹2,000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, by the impugned order, has dismissed the Appeal and maintained the order of the District Forum. Learned Amicus submitted that the Petitioner did not receive any information regarding dishonouring of the cheque of ₹3,00,000/- deposited by him as also he did not receive back the cheque, so as to enable him to take necessary action against the person, who had issued the cheque. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to be compensated for entire amount of ₹3,00,000/- for default of the Respondent, as he could not take any action to recover the amount from the person who had issued the cheque, namely, Gyanik Patel. It may be mentioned here that in the order passed by the District Forum, a specific finding has been recorded that the Respondent herein had not placed any evidence before the District Forum to show that they have informed the Petitioner that his cheque, which has been received back without payment, has been sent through Courier on 26.2.2019. On a query being made by us to the learned Counsel for the Respondent, as to what is the name of the Courier and whether the said letter sent through Courier to the Petitioner has been delivered to the Petitioner or not, learned Counsel expressed his ignorance because there is no pleading in this behalf neither in the Written Version nor any evidence was filed before the District Forum. Moreover, the finding recorded by the District Forum that the Respondent had not filed any evidence in support of the plea that the cheque had been sent back through Courier on 26.2.2009, has not been challenged by the Respondent and it has attained finality.

That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the Petitioner is entitled for some more compensation towards mental agony and harassment. We, therefore, enhance the compensation from ₹10,000/- to ₹1,00,000/-, payable by the Respondents herein to the Petitioner within one month. This enhancement has been made for the simple reason that the cheque of ₹3,00,000/- issued by Gyanik Patel was dishonoured and the Petitioner was not informed about the dishonouring of the cheque nor the cheque had been received back by him, so as to enable him to take suitable proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1938.

Before parting with the case, we record our appreciation for Ms.Shweta S. Parihar, learned Counsel, who had been appointed as Amicus Curiae for the effort made by her in rendering valuable assistance to us in deciding the Revision Petition. We direct the Registry to pay a further sum of ₹15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as out of pocket expenses to Ms.Shweta S. Parihar, learned Amicus Curiae.

The Revision Petition is allowed in part.

Order dasti.

********

	advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela