JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner heard. 2. Smt. Kamla widow of Shri Shridas Mohta issued three cheques in the sum of Rs.1,562/-, Rs.1,499/- and Rs.25,000/-, total being Rs.28,151/-. However, Canara Bank cleared all these cheques though the complainant was having short of Rs.859/- in her saving bank account. The customer/complainant was old one and having account for the last 25 years, therefore, the bank allowed temporary overdraft, of its own accord, for Rs.859/- and cleared all the three cheques. 3. Aggrieved by this, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum partly accepted this complaint and directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 26.6.2007 till its realization. It also awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,000/- and costs of the complaint in the sum of Rs.1,000/- . 4. Aggrieved by this order, first appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. She is harping on the same point that the bank had given overdraft facility of -3- its own accord. The complainant had never applied for that. They should have rejected the cheques. She is also in a doubt whether these cheques were issued by her client or not but the order shows that this fact was never denied by the learned counsel for the complainant in the District Forum and State Commission. She has created a new argument in her favour. We have perused the complaint thoroughly. It does not say that the cheque was forged one. It does not say that the cheque was not signed by her. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that this particular cheque leaf belongs to their cheque book. She submits that that cheque has been misused but she has not bolstered her case with cogent and plausible evidence. Last but not the least, the order of the State Commission clearly goes to show that: “Adv. Mr. Sawal appearing for the respondent argued that the cheque of Rs.25,000/- was issued to one Mr. Balasubramanian at Ahmedabad from her different cheque book long back. However, Mr. Balasubramanian deposited the above cheque in his bank i.e. State Bank of India, Branch High Court -4- Building, Ahmedabad without informing her. The complainant issued two cheques to BSNL after clearing these two cheques, there was no sufficient balance to clear the disputed cheque of Rs.25,000/- without informing the complainant OP-Bank wrongly cleared the said cheque by giving temporary overdraft, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The Forum below appreciating all these facts and allowed the complaint which needs no interference.” 6. It is thus clear that the bank helped the customer to avoid dishonor of her cheque. The bank tried its best to save the complainant from the rigours of N.I. Act and from defame. Why the bank should pay her loan. It is also clear that if the intention of the complainant was not to pay Rs.25,000/- to the payee of the cheque, she should have given intimation to the bank for stop payment. No such intimation was sent. It is also difficult to fathom as to how these three cheques were encahsed. In case the cheque of Rs.25,000/- -5- was encashed, first of all then all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner pale into insignificance. The State Commission was pleased to observe: “After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the case papers, we observe that on just before the clearing of all three cheques i.e. 26.06.2007, credit balance of complainant’s account was Rs.27,292/- and to clear all three cheques an amount of Rs.28,151/- was needed. Since the complainant was having account with the Bank more than 25 years, cleared all the three cheques by giving temporary overdraft of Rs.859/-. The bank helped the complainant to avoid legal dispute with regard to dishonor of cheque that too for very meager amount of Rs.859/-. We agree with the argument of the advocate for the appellant as a good gesture, the appellant bank done a favour for the complainant instead of appreciating the action of the bank, complainant filed the consumer complaint. As -6- pointed out by the appellant’s advocate, it is very difficult to ascertain which cheque was cleared first and which was cleared latter by mere looking the entries of the pass-book. The complainant also did not bother to inform the bank to “Stop Payment” and she was careless in issuing cheques.” The case is without merits, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
