Loss Of Dishonoured Cheque In Transit From Bank To Customer, Chandigarh State Commission Holds Yes Bank Liable

Brief Facts:

Mr Shashi Kumar (“Complainant”) alleged that he deposited a ₹ 25,000/- cheque with Yes Bank Limited (“Bank”), which bounced due to insufficient funds. He was informed that the cheque was sent to his address by M/s Track On Courier Private Limited (“Courier Company”). Despite attempts to retrieve the cheque, including contacting the bank and the courier company, he was unsuccessful. This resulted in the Complainant facing difficulties in paying loan EMIs, leading to penalties. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”).

In response, the bank argued that the responsibility lies with the courier company for the lost cheque, highlighting that the Complainant did not report the issue under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act despite having evidence. They also mentioned that the Complainant had requested a change of address after the incident. On the other hand, the courier company claimed a lack of contractual relationship with the complainant and emphasized the difficulty in locating records beyond a certain timeframe. They proposed compensatory payments based on industry norms.

The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000/- compensation and Rs. 7,000/- for litigation costs. The complaint against the courier company was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Commission, the bank filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (“State Commission”).

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission found that the Complainant's claim regarding the dishonoured cheque, its return, and subsequent loss during dispatch by the bank through the courier company was not disputed. Despite the loss of the original cheque, the Complainant had copies of the cheque and return memo provided by the bank. The State Commission noted that the loss of the cheque did not preclude the complainant from filing a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Notwithstanding this, the State Commission held that it was the duty of the bank to deliver the original copy of the cheque to the Complainant safely. It emphasized that the responsibility for dealing with the courier agency lay with the bank, not the complainant.

Citing Manager, Bank of Baroda and Anr. vs Chitrodiya Babuji Divanji [Revision Petition No. 2028 of 2016], the Commission upheld the District Commission's decision, affirming that the bank was indeed guilty of deficient service, causing loss and harassment to the complainant. The State Commission noted that the District Commission's order was well-reasoned, demonstrating a thorough consideration of the facts and evidence presented.

Consequently, the State Commission dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Commission's decision, as it found no merit in the bank's arguments.