17-09-14 – The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the ordersheet.

1.       This appeal has been filed by the Bank against the order directing it to pay Rs. 1,48,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 24.06.2014 till the date of payment and also Rs. 25,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.

2.       The case of the Complainant/ Respondent in short is that he was a contractor. He had worked under M/s Kumar Infrastratrutures Pvt. Limited, Patna (the Drawer for short) against which a Cheque No. 072575 dated 25.01.2010 for Rs. 1,48,000/- was issued in his favour. He deposited the said cheque in his account on 11.06.2010 for encashment. The amount of the said cheque was credited in his account on 12.06.2010. The Complainant issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- to one Mr. Dayanand Chaurasia, but it was dishonored on the ground of insufficient fund.  The Complainant learnt that the said amount of Rs. 1,48,000/- was debited from his account due to which the cheque issued by him was dishonored. According to the complainant the Bank wrongly debited the said amount of Rs. 1,48,000/- without any valid reason and thereby committed deficiency in service.

3.       According to the Bank, the Drawer of the said cheque for Rs. 1,48,000/- stopped the payment of the said cheque by letter dated 22.06.2014 and therefore the amount of the cheque was debited on 24.06.2014. Regarding the credit of the cheque amount on 12.06.2010, the stand of the Bank is that on deposit of cheque the amount is credited subject to clearance, which will appear from the statement of account of the Bank, showing the said amount as – “SET HOLD”.

4.       Learned Lower Forum interalia held that the stand of the Bank that there was difference in the amount written in figures and in words in the cheque, was incorrect and similar stand taken by the Drawer was also incorrect. It also held that once the amount is credited, it cannot be returned/debited without the permission of the customer.

5.       Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order, whereas learned counsel for the Respondent supported it.

6.       In our opinion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. When the Complainant deposited the cheque in question on 11.06.2010 the amount of the cheque was credited in his account with the Note – “SET HOLD”. It appears that the Drawer of the cheque wrote a letter to the Bank dated 22.06.2010 stopping payment, saying that there was mistake in the amount written in figure and words, and therefore he had issued another cheque to the Complainant. 

7.       The Complainant could not deny such letter, though it is said that there was no occasion for the Drawer to write such letter to the Bank of the Complainant.  The Drawer should have written to his own Bank. Therefore it is submitted that the Drawer in connivance with the Bank officials has got debited the cheque amount from the account of the Complainant.

8.       The appellant Bank had no option than to debit the amount of the cheque in question. It is true that in the cheque in question the amount in figure and words were correctly mentioned but it is not understood why the Drawer had stopped payment on wrong pretext, that there was mistake in the words and figure in the cheque.  The complainant has admitted in his complaint that his relationship with the Drawer were not ‘Sweet’.   If any wrong was committed by the Drawer, the Bank cannot be held liable.

9.       In the result, the complaint is rejected; the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

          Let the statutory amount be returned to the appellant within four weeks.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,    

            Dated: 17.09.2014