LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 15 April 2026

Under the Consumer Protection Act, does a bank that receives cheques for collection and lets them become stale, without any reasonable explanation, commit deficiency in service?

CANARA BANK v. KAVITA CHOWDHARY
2026 INSC 363 · Civil Appeal No. 2587 of 2025
Coram: Ujjal Bhuyan; B.V. Nagarathna
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.75A Negotiable Instruments Act…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Yes. Such a bank acts as an agent of the customer and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period. Failure to do so, resulting in the instrument becoming stale and unsupported by any reasonable explanation, amounts to negligence in the discharge of banking duties and constitutes deficiency in rendering service.

Headnote

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — s.2(g) — Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — s.2(11) — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s.75A — s.105 — s.138 — Deficiency in service — Presentment within validity period — Reasonable compensation — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — s.2(g) — Bank receiving cheques for collection — Cheque allowed to become stale — Held: A bank receiving cheques for collection acts as an agent of the customer, bound to present them within the validity period. Allowing them to become stale, unexplained, is negligence in the discharge of banking duties and deficiency in rendering service. (¶59) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s.75A — Delay in presentment — Excuse ceases with its cause — Held further: Delay in presentment is excused only while circumstances beyond the control of the holder operate and are not imputable to his negligence. Once the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made within a reasonable time. (¶56) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — s.2(11) — Quantum of compensation — Loss indeterminate — Held further: Compensation must be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury proved. Where the loss stays indeterminate, only token compensation is due; 10 percent of the face value was reduced to 6 percent and the appeals disposed of. (¶69, 71, 72)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 59A bank receiving cheques for collection acts as an agent of the customer and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period. Failure to do so resulting in the instrument becoming stale, in the absence of any reasonable explanation, would result in negligence in the discharge of banking duties which would constitute deficiency in rendering service within the meaning of the consumer protection law.
Acts & Sections
s.75A Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.2(g) Consumer Protection Act, 1986s.2(11) Consumer Protection Act, 2019s.105 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.84 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.2(o) Consumer Protection Act, 1986s.2(42) Consumer Protection Act, 2019s.73 Indian Contract Act, 1872

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of CANARA BANK v. KAVITA CHOWDHARY — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, how long does Section 75A excuse delay in presenting a cheque when the delay is caused by a bank strike?How should a consumer forum assess compensation for deficiency in service where the loss suffered is itself indeterminate?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections