Ignoring written instructions regarding stop payment amounts to deficiency of service

9.       On perusal of above, we find that the State Commission has accepted the appeal against the order of the District Forum mainly for the reason that the instructions dated 14.02.2004 given by the complainant to the respondent bank was vague and it could not be treated as clear instructions of ‘stop payment’. On careful consideration of record, we find that aforesaid conclusion of the State Commission is erroneous as the State Commission while arriving at the conclusion has ignored the fact that the numbers of cheques stated to have been misplaced vide instructions dated 14.02.2004 were recorded by the respondent bank in the unused cheque register officially maintained in this regard.  Photocopy of the unused cheque register maintained by the respondent bank is available on record.  On perusal of the aforesaid photocopy, we find that on 14.02.2004, the entry regarding seven unused cheques pertaining to the bank account no.4226 of the complainant including cheque no.7780, which is the bone of contention in this revision, was actually made by the respondent bank in the unused cheque register pursuant to the instructions dated 14.02.2004 of the complainant.  From this, it is obvious that the respondent bank actually understood the instructions given by the complainant and it is because of the said reason, the entries pertaining to unused cheques was made in the unused cheque register.  That being the case, the respondent bank now cannot take shelter of vagueness in the letter dated 14.02.2004 of the complainant addressed to the respondent bank.  From the above referred entry in the unused cheque register, it is clear that on 14.02.2004, the respondent bank was fully aware that as per the instructions of the complainant, the cheques entered in the unused cheque register were not to be encashed without first referring to the complainant.  Admittedly, the respondent bank encashed one of those cheques bearing no.7780 for Rs.1,68,450/- relating to account no.4226 of the complainant without referring to and seeking instructions from the complainant.  This in our view obviously amount to deficiency in service.  The State Commission has allowed the appeal of the respondent bank against the order of the District Forum without taking into account the entries made in the relevant unused cheque register maintained in the bank.  Thus in our view, the order of the State Commission suffers from material irregularity and is unsustainable.

..REVISION PETITION  NO. 2300  OF  2012 - National Commission - Amitaben Dilipkumar Shah & Ors. Vs. Varachha Co.op Bank Ltd.