Presented by Sri G. S. Pradhan, President. <br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant is an account holder of Opposite Parties Bank bearing account No. 10441912603 having multicity cheque facilities as such he is a consumer of Opposite Parties. He has issued an cheque bearing No.003948 Dt. 21/03/2008 for a sum of Rs. 43,262.34/-(Rupees forty three thousand two hundred sixty two and thirty four paise)only in favour of M/s Wockhardt Limited, Cuttack. On production the cheque by the drawee for collection before the Opposite Party No.2(two), the Opposite Party No.2(two) dishonored the cheque and returned the same to the drawee with an endorsement of refer to drawer with out assigning any reason, though there was sufficient money in the account. The Opposite Party No.2(two) has deducted a sum of Rs. 433/-(Rupees four hundred thirty three)only from the account of the drawee towards the service charges for collection of cheque amount. Dishonour of cheque of the Complainant having sufficient money in the account with out assigning any reason and also deducting of service charge for collection of the cheque amount from the account of the drawee are quite unethical approach of the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant is amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant filed this case against the Opposite Parties and claims compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards mental agony and Rs.433/-(Rupees four hundred thirty three)only for the service charges deducted by the Opposite Parties which is paid by the Complainant to the drawee of the cheque.<br /> <br /> On being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared and filed version jointly through their Advocate. In its version the Opposite Parties admitted that the Complainant is bonafide account holder of Opposite Parties Bank having cheque facilities and the Opposite Party No.1(one) had supplied multicity cheque to the Complainant, and bouncing of the cheque bearing No. 003948 Dt.21/03/2008 for Rs.43,262.34(Rupees forty three thousand two hundred sixty two and thirty four paise)only issued by the Complainant to the M/s Wockhardt Limited, Cuttack. with an endorsement “refer to drawer”. Further it is also admitted that a sum of Rs.433/-(Rupees four hundred thirty three)only has been deducted towards the Bank charges from the account of the drawee.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant so also denied the all other allegation made by the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Since the Opposite Party has not caused any deficiency in providing any service to the Complainant nor have acted callously while discharging their official duty are not liable jointly or severally to pay any compensation and prays for dismissal of the complainant with cost.<br /> We have gone through the complaint petition, Opposite Parties's version as well as the documents filed by the Parties in respective of their case and found as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant has filed the original cheque bearing No.003984 Dt. 21/03/08 issued by the Complainant infavour of M/s Wockhardt Limited, Cuttack, letter of intimation Dt. 31/03/2008, letter Dt.03/04/2008 issued by Wockhardt Limited in favour of Complainant, letter Dt. 08/04/2008 issued by the Complainant to the C.M., S.B.I. of India Commercial Branch, Bargarh, letter issued by Complainant Dt. 09/04/2008 and letter Dt. 09/04/2008 issued by Opposite Party No.1(one) to Opposite Party No.2(two) to prove his case.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that on presentation the cheque by the drawee on Dt. 31/03/2008 for collection, the Opposite Party No.2(two) dishonored the said cheque and returned the same with an endorsement 'refer to drawer' with out assigning any reason thereof, though there was sufficient money in the account of the Complainant on Dt. 31/03/2008. The Complainant vide letter Dt. 08/04/2008 wanted to know the reason of such dishonour of his cheque but the Opposite Party did not give any reply to the Complainant. The Opposite Party was also not disputed that, there was no sufficient money in the account of the Complainant on Dt.31/03/2008. The Opposite Party No.2(two) with out any reasonable cause illegally dishonour the cheque of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contends that as per the rules and term and condition, S.B.I. Cash Credit facilities is sanctioned for a term of one year and after the lapse of one year further renewal of limit is granted at Bank's discretion. The Opposite Party No.1(one) had temporarily extended the validity period on Dt. 27/02/2008 to Dt. 30/03/2008 in the core banking system. The drawee has presented the cheque for collection in the first hours of Banking transaction and by than the validity period is expired. While the dealing officer of Opposite Party No.2(two) passing the cheque No. 003948 for Rs. 43,262.34/-(Rupees forty three thousand two hundred sixty two and thirty four paise)only, the computer indicated the drawing power zero for want of validity period of sanction. Further the Opposite Parties contends that, the dealing officer of Opposite Party No.2(two) instead of returning the cheque with remark insufficient fund, returned the cheque with remark, refer to drawer.<br /> The plea taken by the Opposite Parties is not acceptable. When an account holder of a Bank is provided with multicity cheque facilities has sufficient money in his account and a cheque has been issued with in the limit, the dishonored of the said cheque with out assigning any reason there of is deficiency in providing service towards the account holder.<br /> <br /> The letter Dt. 09/04/2008 issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Opposite Party No.2(two) itself proves the negligence and deficiency in service towards the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2(two). For such callous act of the Opposite Parties and deficiency in providing service, the Complainant has suffered heavy loss along with the loss of repudiation in the market and is entitled for compensation to which the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) are jointly and severely liable to pay to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In view of above discussion the Complainant is well established a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards mental agony, Rs. 433/-(Rupees four hundred thirty three)only taken by the Opposite Party No.2(two) towards service charges and Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand)only as litigation cost to the Complainant with in 30(thirty) days from the date of this order failing which 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum will be charged on the total awarded amount till the date of payment.<br /> Complaint disposed of.<br />