SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT) The case of the complainant is that complainant is an account holder of the opposite party bank. The complainant has given a cheque to M/s.Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd for an amount of Rs.l,62,079.17/-. Cheque is dated 3.10.2008. The said cheque was presented and dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant states that there are sufficient funds in their account for honoring the said cheque. Even then they were dishonored the cheque given by the complainant. Hence he filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service against the opposite parties. 2. Opposite parties filed version stating following contentions. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. There are sufficient funds for honouring the cheque of the complainant. But due to an oversight the cheque was dishonoured. Hence there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. There is no loss caused to the complainant. Hence they prayed that complaint may be dismissed. 3. Considering the rival contentions of the complainant and opposite parties, this Forum raised following issues:- a. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation from the opposite parties establishing the deficiency as averred in the complaint? 4. Complainant given evidence and produced 6 documents. They are marked as Exts.A1 to A6. There is no dispute with regard to dishonor of cheque and at the same time sufficient funds are available in the account of the complainant for honoring the said cheque. One of the main contentions of the opposite parties are that he is not a consumer since the complainant is doing commercial activity. Here the service which would have been rendered by the opposite party is only for enchasing the cheque amount. The service in between the complainant and the opposite parties are not for getting any profit from the opposite parties. The services availed for commercial purposes from the other side only will come within the purview of Section 2d of Consumer Protection Act. Hence the dispute in question will not come within the purview of the exclusion clause 2 (d) (ii). This position was elaborately discussed in the decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 1428. So the complaint is maintainable. 5. The opposite parties admitted the fact that the cheque was dishonored due to an to an oversight. Due to the acts of the opposite party complainant's reputation affected. In business transactions payment of money in correct time will always suffixes the credit worthiness of a customer. This will always help and improve the reputation of a customer in the business world. Hence no doubt the said dishonour of cheque will definitely affect the reputation of the complainant. Negligence means careless conduct in commission or omission of an act connoting duty, breach and the damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the plaintiff owes (Raj Court Municipal Corporation VS Manjulben (1997) 2 T AC 461). In the decisions reported in IV - 2008) CPJ 302 the Honourable Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission consider an issue of a cheque dishonoured due to the fault of computer. In that case the State Commission held that the act of the opposite party was deficiency of service and directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-. In that case was cheque amount was Rs.7,704/-. In another case reported in IV-(2008) CPJ 528 of same facts the Chattisgarh State Commission held that dishonor of cheque due to the defect of :he computer is deficiency in service. In this case the cheque amount is Rs.8,350/- and Rs.5000/- was awarded as compensation. Here the cheque amount is Rs.1,62,079/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we found that the acts of the opposite parties are deficiency in service. Hence complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation. Hence we are quantified the compensation is Rs.15, 000/- . We directed to the opposite parties to pay Rs.15, 000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this award. If the award is not satisfied within the said stipulated period, complainant is entitled to get 12% interest per annum from the date of the order. Complainant is also entitled to get cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only). In the result complaint allowed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2009. Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah: Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan: Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi: Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Jacob Mathew (Witness) Ext.A1 - Cheque for Rs.1,62,079.17 Ext.A2 - Memorandum of cheque returned Ext.A3 - Letter dated 20.12.2008 Ext.A4 - Letter dated 5.1.2009 Ext.A5 - Letter dated 22.5.2009 Ext.A6 - Balance sheet as at 31st March, 2008 Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F. Typed by:- pr/- Compared by:- | 
