O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had an current bank account bearing No.01862000002801, with the O.P bank. It is alleged that in the month of September 2008, the complainant had issued two cheques i) bearing No.000000000255 for a sum of Rs.21,085/- dated 24.09.2008 and ii) bearing No.000000000256 for a sum of Rs.24,960 dated 24.09.2008 the said cheques were dishonored with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” even when the balance on that day was Rs.1,26,434/-. It is alleged that the complainant contacted the bank to know why the cheques were returned on the ground of “Insufficient Funds” even there were sufficient funds to honour them. It is further alleged that the bank failed to give any satisfactory reply and was charged Rs.674.16 as cheques return charges for the dishonoring of the above cheques even when the cheques were wrongly dishonored due to the fault of the bank. Similarly complainant had also issued a cheque bearing No.000000000251 dated 15.10.2008 for Rs.60,624/- to ICICI Bank to make the payment of outstanding EMIs on his auto loan account taken from the ICICI Bank, this cheque was also dishonored on the ground of “Insufficient Funds” even when there was balance of Rs.1,41,614.28 on that day. It is alleged that the bank has also charged Rs.337.08 for dishonoring of cheque. It is alleged that due to the aforesaid conduct of the O.P the complainant had suffered loss of amount of consideration of the said document of three cheques. However, despite of repeated visit and request to O.P but no action has been taken against the Officer of the Bank. The complainant has also sent a notice dated 12.11.2008 but to no avail. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to pay Rs.1011.24 wrongly charged by the O.P for dishonoring of the cheques and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement OP has not disputed that complainant had an saving bank account bearing No.01862000002801, with the O.P bank. However, case of OP is that the present complaint is even otherwise liable to be rejected at the very threshold as no negligence or deficiency of services can be attributed to the O.P bank in respect of dishonor of the cheques as alleged in the complaint. It is alleged that the O.P bank followed the laid down standard procedures with respect to clearance of cheques and as such no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the O.P bank. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts made in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Sarika Prasad, Authorized Signatory of O.P Bank has already filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P Bank. Both parties have also filed their written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and also heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.
5. The controversy existing in the present case is as to whether the dishonor of three cheques tendered by complainant for clearance was justified or not. The case of the complainant is that though there was insufficient amount in the account of the complainant on the date of issuance of aforesaid three cheques but despite there being sufficient amount, the O.P dishonored the cheques stating “insufficient fund” which amounted to deficiency in service. The plea taken by O.P is that amount of Rs.73,348/- in the account of the complainant was under hold due to a previous transaction which on realizing a listing error was subsequently credited in the account of the complainant and that further two cheques in the sum of Rs.27,379/- and Rs.16,671/- amounting to Rs.44,050/- could not be cleared because, the day before the presentation of the cheque No.255 and No.256 were still under clearing. The plea taken by the O.P for not honoring the cheques issued by the complainant is only misconceived and unsustainable, it has come on record that there was a balance of Rs.1,26,434/- but the cheques in question being of less amount were dishonored stating “insufficient fund” clearly amounted to deficiency in service by O.P. The O.P cannot anticipate the clearing of earlier cheques issued by the complainant and decline honoring of the subsequent cheques. For the aforesaid reasons we have concluded that the O.P unreasonably dishonored the cheques of the complainant despite there being sufficient amount in their bank account. Therefore, it amounted to deficiency in service.
6. Keeping in view the discussions stated above, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service by O.P. We are also view that ends of justice will be met, if we direct the O.P to reverse of Rs.1011.24/- in the bank account of the complainant which was wrongly charged by O.P for dishonoring the cheques alongwith interest @ 6% from the date institution of the complaint till payment, the further award of Rs.2,000/- towards harassment mental agony loss of time and litigation cost.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 1st day of February, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
