BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 04/06/2009

Date of Order : 27/06/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 301/2009

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

The complainant is the Senior Manager and Location Head of M/s. H & R Johnson India Limited, a prestigious tile manufacturing company in India. The complainant is maintaining an account with the 1^st opposite party from 2008. The complainant had booked a car for his official use H & R Johnson India Ltd. has a tie up with Kotak Mahindra for financing vehicle for their employees. As per the arrangement, the company would obtain the margin money from the employees and on sanctioning the loan from the financial institution will make payment to the dealer. Towards margin money the complainant issued a cheque in favour of his company for an amount of Rs. 1,69,054/- drawn on the 1^st opposite party bank. The company presented the cheque for collection on 03-01-2008. But the same was dishonoured for the reason of “insufficient funds” though there was sufficient fund to honour the cheque. The balance amount as on 03-01-2008 was Rs. 5,51,093.92. The complainant several times requested the opposite parties for an explanation for their unpardonable action, but there was no response. Thus, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the 2^nd opposite party dated 25-01-2008, since there was no reply. The complainant again caused a letter dated 29-02-2008. On 12-03-2008, the opposite party sent a reply stating untenable contentions. In the notice, they have stated that the cheque has been dishonoured due to mismatching and error in the entries made in the cheque. Aggrieved by the above conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant preferred a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman closed the complaint stating that the compensation claimed by the complainant is beyond the scope of Banking Ombudsman's Scheme. In the mean time, the complainant's employer called for his explanation for issuance of a cheque without sufficient balance in the bank account. The dishonour of the cheque has tarnished the reputation of the complainant before his employer. The complainant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs from the opposite parties together with costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.

2. Version of the opposite parties :

The cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured due to system error beyond the control of any of the employees of the opposite parties. On the very next day that is, on 05-01-2008 the opposite party convinced the above facts to the complainant. The opposite party requested the complainant to present the same cheque for encashment but he failed to do so. The Banking Ombudsman closed the proceedings when the opposite parties explained the situation promptly. There is no laches or negligence on the part of the opposite party in dishonouring the cheque. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on his side. Witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs from the opposite parties as claimed by him or not?

5. The following facts are not disputed by the parties :

1. Ext. A1 cheque dated 02-01-2008 to the tune of Rs. 1,69,054/- in favour of M/s. H & R Johnson India Ltd. drawn on opposite party bank was issued by the complainant.

2. The same was presented before the opposite party on 03-01-2008 but it was dishonoured stating the reason as “insufficient funds” evidenced by Ext. A2 memorandum dated 03-01-2008.

3. The complainant caused notice to be issued to the opposite parties as per Ext. A5 letter dated 25-01-2008.

4. In reply to that, the opposite party sent a reply as evidenced by Ext. A6 in which they have differed form the reason as stated in Ext. A2 stating that the dishonour was due to system error.

5. It is not uncontroverted that the complainant had sufficient funds in his account to have the said cheque honoured in his account at the time presentation (evident from Ext. A3 bank statement).

6. It is the complainant's case that due to dishonour of cheque for reasons stated in Ext. A2 has gone to tarnish his image in the company and lower him in status before his colleagues as seemingly having attempted to cheat.

7. Nothing is before us either to controvert the contentions of the complainant or anything as to otherwise the complainant or anything on the part of the opposite parties.

8. We also don't have case by the complainant that he has lost his job or career because of the aforesaid circumstances. He still reasons to be working in the same company which goes to show that he is only trying to some face which has not lost by bringing up a tall claim for compensation.

9. No doubt there has been apprehensions and mental agony to a consumer which calls for compensation - exemplary. We fix it at Rs. 25,000/-.

6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant for the reasons stated above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the above amount till realisation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 27^th day of June 2011.