1997 (8) TMI 423 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Deficiency in service by the Bank regarding the non-return of an unsigned cheque within a reasonable period.
2. Entitlement to compensation for the loss incurred due to the Bank's deficiency in service.

Analysis:
1. The complainant applied for shares of a company through a right issue by submitting a cheque to the Bank. The Bank failed to return the cheque promptly due to the absence of the complainant's signature. The District Forum found the Bank guilty of deficiency in service for the delayed return of the cheque. However, the compensation awarded was deemed excessive, and the complainant was granted only token damages of Rs. 500. The complainant appealed against this decision, arguing that the Bank's delay had caused her a significant loss as the market price of the shares had increased substantially.

2. The appellant contended that the Bank was obligated to return the cheque within a reasonable period, which, in the case of a local cheque, was considered to be one week. It was argued that the Bank's inaction led to the complainant's inability to benefit from the right issue at a lower price. The appellant emphasized that the complainant's loss was directly linked to the Bank's deficiency in service and should be compensated accordingly.

3. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the Bank had no obligation to inform the complainant about the missing signature on the cheque. It was asserted that the complainant was at fault for not signing the cheque and verifying the debit in her account. The respondent contended that the Negotiable Instruments Act was not applicable in this scenario and that the complainant's claim for compensation based on market price differentials was unjustified.

4. The Commission held that the Bank had failed to return the cheque within a reasonable period, which was determined to be one week. While the Bank was found deficient in service, the compensation awarded needed to be proportionate to the actual loss suffered by the complainant. The Commission directed the Bank to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation, considering the significant market price difference that affected the complainant's financial interests. The Bank was given four weeks to fulfill this payment, failing which the complainant could seek further recourse under the relevant legal provisions.

5. In conclusion, the Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, acknowledging the Bank's deficiency in service and the resulting financial loss incurred. The compensation amount was increased to Rs. 5,000 to align with the actual damages suffered by the complainant. The decision highlighted the importance of timely and efficient banking services in safeguarding the interests of customers participating in financial transactions.