TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said amount and he made over the said RPO to his banker New Bank of India, for collection. Though the RPO was sent to the treasury by the collecting bank, the treasury officer returned it with the intimation that for the purpose of collection of the money the RPO must come through the local bank or collecting bank or messenger. Even when the messenger was sent, collection could not be made. But due to delay the validity of the RPO expired and it was revalidated by the officer concerned. However, for a considerable period of time the banker made every endeavour to get it encashed at the treasury and in the process the RPO was revalidated on several occasions. But ultimately the State Bank of India intimated that the RPO not being an MICR in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State Bank of India and that the applicant is being made to suffer by insisting on use of the RPO which is incapable of being utilised for the purpose of clearance. 3. To contest the case the respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein the respondents, while admitting the difficulties of the applicant, have contended that to avoid such difficulties the applicant ought to have tendered the RPO (cash) to the Reserve Bank of India directly for encashment. According to the respondents the practice of issue of non-MICR instrument like RPO (cash) is the only mode for refund by the Government and this system having worked quite satisfactorily up-to-date in the case of other recipients, there is no reason why it would pose a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on through a bank preferably the State Bank of India. When the applicant s bank (New Bank of India) forwarded it to the State Bank of India for collection, the RPO got stuck up unduly with the State Bank of India on account of two objections of the treasury officer. One such ground, viz., absence of the payee s endorsement, was patently untrue since the endorsement was very much in existence. The other ground was the official embargo on payment. These aspects have not been disputed either during hearing or in the affidavit-inopposition. Thus, the applicant cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, yet it is he who suffered for the non-payment. 6.. Sri A.K. Roy, learned advocate for the applicant, contends that the real problem was the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter dated July 26, 1996 (vide annexure D to the application). But that is no solace for the applicant. He is entitled to get refund of the money and it is the duty of the respondents to see that the intent of refund of Rs. 10,000 as declared in the RPO is not fated to remain just on paper but is accomplished by actual payment. The applicant cannot be made to suffer for the respondents non-adoption of the system of issuing MICR instrument. In the letter dated May 2, 1996 (annexure K to the application) the learned advocate for the applicant addressed to the C.T.O., Chichira Check Post, an elaborate discussion has been made as to how the applicant made every endeavour to encash the RPO but failed in his bid. In view of the introduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
