By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of the complainant is that he has given a cheque No.60831 of the respondent Bank to the Oriental Insurance Company on 20.8.04. The cheque has given to policy No.2005/3795 towards the premium. But the cheque was returned by the respondent Bank as funds insufficient when it was presented for collection by the insurance company. There were sufficient funds in the account of complainant. Inspite of sufficiency of funds, it was dishonoured by the respondent Bank and it is deficiency in service on the part of Bank and the complainant has lost credibility before the insurance company. Hence lawyer notice was sent by the complainant, but no remedy. So this complaint has filed. 2. The averments in the version are as follows: The complaint is false and not maintainable. The respondent admits that the petitioner is maintaining an account with this respondent. It is also admitted that a cheque issued by him dated 20.8.2004 was returned unpaid for want of funds in his account. It is not admitted that the petitioner has lost his credibility on account of the cheque return. The respondent is not liable to pay any amount as compensation much less Rs.20,000/- as claimed as there is no deficiency of any kind on the part of this respondent. This respondent submits that the petitioner opened an account with this opposite party on 28.5.2004. This account is a three-in-one account consisting of a Savings Bank, Security Trading and Demat account all linked and interconnected with each other. The petitioner is an on line trader in shares and securities and has entered into an agreement with the opposite party whereby he has authorised the ICICI Web Trade to debit all the demat account related charges in ICICI Bank account linked to i-direct account. The respondent further submits that the cheque in question was presented on 2-9-2004 by State Bank of Travancore through local clearing house. Out of the balance of Rs.5,74,406.48 standing to the credit of the petitioners account, for the purposes of his trading in the share market the petitioner himself had earmarked a sum of Rs.5,60,252.76 thereby leaving an effective balance of Rs.14,153.72 only in his account. The cheque issued by the petitioner was for a sum of Rs.17,780/- and as the balance was less than the amount of cheque drawn the system rejected the instrument and hence the cheque was returned for the reasons funds insufficient. Suppressing all the above facts the petitioner has filed the present petition, which is only an abuse of the process of law. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The points for consideration are: (1)Is there any deficiency in service? (2)If so, reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. R1 and R2 series. No other evidence. 5. Points-1 & 2: The case of complainant is that the cheque No.60831 issued by him dated 20.8.04 was returned as unpaid for want of funds in his account by the respondent Bank. According to the complainant there were sufficient funds in his account yet the respondent bank has dishonoured the cheque. The said cheque was given to the Oriental Insurance Company towards the premium to policy No.2005/3795 and the dishonour of cheque caused loss of credibility in the eye of insurance company. In the complaint there is no details like the account number, the amount etc. He simply filed a complaint, without necessary particulars. The cheque amount is also not mentioned. But the details omitted by the complainant are stated in the version filed by respondent. The petitioner has given the cheque for Rs.17,700/-. The account number also stated in the version. The main defence of the respondent is that there was a balance of Rs.5,75,406.48 standing to the credit of the petitioners account and for the purposes of his trading in the share market the petitioner himself had earmarked a sum of Rs.5,60,252.76 thereby leaving effective balance of Rs.14.153.72/- only in his account. The cheque issued by the petitioner was for a sum of Rs.17,780-00 and in the balance was less than the amount of cheque drawn and returned for the reason funds insufficient. To establish the case respondent has filed two documents and are marked as Exts. R1 and R2. Ext. R1 is the computer print of the account lien statement. It establishes the case of respondent and on 3.9.04 there were release of three times. The main defence of respondent is that for the purposes of his trading in the share market the petitioner himself had earmarked a sum of Rs.5,60,252.76. But there is no evidence at all to show the standing instructions given by the complainant. The details of account have not produced by anybody. The complainant can very well produce the account details. He also abstained from this. There is no supporting evidence to Ext. R1. If such a huge amount is transferred to share market petitioner would have knowledge about it and no chance to issue a cheque to insurance company. The respondent failed to establish his case. Even though the service deficiency of respondent is proved, petitioner is not entitled for the compensation as claimed. In the complaint there is no details regarding the transactions. Any way the service deficiency is proved and the complaint is liable to be allowed. But he is entitled for a nominal compensation. 6. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant as compensation and no order as to cost. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 19th day of September 2008.
