Page 19 - BANKING FINANCE February 2024

LEGAL UPDATE

Legal

News

Bank bound to honour filed a complaint with the banking cheques were posted to the bank but
ombudsman, but his complaint was not received by it, the bank was well
bearer cheque rejected. aware that all three cheques were lost
Susheel Thakur had issued cheque After nine years, Thakur filed a com- and ought to have refused payment.
number 090232 dated September 13, plaint in January 2015 seeking a direc- The National Commission agreed that
2005, for Rs 2.7 lakh to his mother. It tion to the bank to pay Rs 2.7 lakh
was made payable to 'self or bearer' along with 18 per cent interest, com- the complaint was time barred and
and sent through post but was lost in there was no valid reason to condone
pensation, and costs, totalling Rs the delay of over nine years in filing the
transit. After issuing stop payment in-
22,57,400. complaint. Nevertheless, the Commis-
structions, Thakur issued cheque num-
ber 090233 dated October 13, 2005, The bank contested the case. It sion also considered the dispute on
for the same amount. This cheque also pointed out that the complaint was not merits. It observed that Thakur was
met the same fate as the previous one. filed within the limitation period but making false allegations by claiming
after nine years of the cheque's that the cheques were sent to the
Thakur then issued cheque number
encashment. It stated that not one of bank, as this was contrary to his sister's
090234 dated October 19, 2005, for the complaint to the police that the
same amount, which was encashed on the three envelopes containing the cheques were sent to her. The Commis-
November 8, 2005. When Thakur learnt cheques was received by it through sion also noted that Thakur had failed
that the encashment was not done by post. It stated that the last cheque to cite any procedural lapse or breach
his mother, but by some unknown per- was presented for encashment and
was honoured by making payment af- of law on the bank's part. Hence it con-
son, he lodged a complaint alleging
ter verifying the drawer's signature. cluded that Susheel had failed to prove
negligence on the bank's part in ascer- the allegation of deficiency in service.
taining the identity of the person to Since it was a bearer cheque, the bank
whom payment was made. stated that payment had to be made The National Commission pointed out
to anyone who presented it, and no that by issuing a 'self' cheque payable
Thakur's sister also lodged a formal
law made it necessary to verify the to 'bearer', Thakur had relinquished
police complaint on December 7,
2005. He then received a threatening identity of the person presenting it. It the right to question its encashment.
letter containing the photograph of a argued that there was no deficiency in It held that any individual possessing a
dead body and a warning that he, too, service as the cheque was legitimately bearer instrument is legally entitled to
would be killed if he pursued the mat- and properly signed. It sought a dis- encash it, and the bank is bound to
ter with the police. Thakur suspected missal of the complaint. honour such an instrument when it is
the involvement of the bank staff as he The State Commission accepted the presented for payment.
had earlier sent a fax message to the bank's arguments and dismissed the Accordingly, by its order of December
bank authorising his mother to execute complaint. Thakur appealed against 27, 2023, the National Commission dis-
bank transactions on his behalf. Thakur the order. He contended that since the missed Thakur's appeal.

BANKING FINANCE | FEBRUARY | 2024 | 17