(Delivered on 5/10/2017)

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. The original complainant  Mr.  Surendra Jangluji Kharbade being not satisfied by the order dated 28/8/2015, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 67 of 2014 has preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant Surendar Jangluji Kharbade  is referred as complainant and respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce through its Branch Manager is referred as opposite party (for short OP) for the sake of convenience.
3. The Complainant filed the consumer complaint No. 67/2014 and sought for compensation of Rs. 1,86,3700/- to be paid by the OP on the following facts and grounds.
   1. Complainant  Secured Overdraft Account  (SOD) bearing No. 1345011000113 with the OP/ Bank Oriental Bank of Commerce. The complainant since 22/2/2010 had a credit limit of Rs. 12,400/-and  subsequently had enhanced credit limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- as against the term deposits of the complainant of Rs. 2,38,295/- sanctioned by the OP/bank as per rules. The aforesaid credit limit was sanctioned by the OP/bank by letter dated 21/8/2012.
   2. It is the contentions of the complainant that he issued a check bearing No. 224521/- dated 28/6/2013, for an amount of Rs. 18,600/- in favour of Commissioner, Nagarpalika Nigam, Indore towards the property tax. It is further contended by the complainant that the OP bank dishonored the cheque on 12/7/2013 by endorsing reason as “Funds Insufficient”  and returned the cheque  with memo and charged Rs. 79/- as “Indore, Cheque returned charges.”
   3. It is the contentions of the complainant that on 12/7/2013, the credit limit  of Rs. 1,90,853/- was balance in his account  and the OP by returning the cheque for funds insufficient had rendered deficiency in service. When the complainant approached the officials of the OP/bank, they failed to give any satisfactory explanation.
   4. It is further contended by the complainant that as the cheque was dishonored due to “Funds Insufficient.”, the Commissioner, Nagar PalikaNigam, Indore threatened the complainant  to initiate criminal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant immediately personally went to Indore and paid the amount of Rs. 18,600/- towards the property tax in cash. The complainant  thus, avoided the proposed criminal action against him.
   5. The complainant suffered immense physical and mental pain and suffered mental agony  due to a tarnished image in the eyes of his relative, close friends and society.
   6. It is the contention of the complainant that although the agony and harassment suffered by him cannot be compensated in terms of money, he has sought for compensation of Rs. 18,37,200/- towards the damage caused to him in his social status, academic and professional standing as enumerated by him in the notice dated 10/8/2013.
   7. It is the contention of the complainant that the officials of the OP/bank on receipt of the aforesaid notice requested the complainant for amicable settlement. The Manager of the OP/bank assured the complainant that he would make all efforts to get maximum compensation from the head office and further requested the complainant not to take any legal action against the bank. As the bank failed to propose any amicable settlement, the complainant issued another letter dated 27/12/2013, reminding the OP/bank for amicable settlement. As the OP bank failed to take any action, the complainant filed consumer complaint alleging unfair trade practice and sought for compensation of Rs. 1,83,700/-  as mentioned in detail in the notice dated 10/8/2013.
4. The OP Oriental Bank of Commerce resisted the complaint by filing its written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant. The OP has specifically submitted in its written version that the credit limit given to the complainant was reduced from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,78,273.80/- against the value of term deposit of Rs. 198082/-. This was informed to the complainant. On 29/5/2012, the term deposit of Rs. 50,000/- was liquidated and appropriated in his account on 10/06/2013. The complainant had requested that letter should be given to him informing that the reason given in the cheque return memo that there is insufficient funds in his account should mentioned to be wrong so that he can be exonerated from prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It is further submitted by the bank that his request was accepted as he was its customer and helped him out by referring the return of cheque as “returned due to technical problem.”
5. The Forum after hearing both the sides and  considering evidence adduced by both the parties, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum by the impugned order allowed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding respectively.
6. The Forum held that the OP/bank had rendered deficiency in service by dishonoring the cheque  on erroneous  reason  of “Funds insufficient”The Forum however did not accept the claim of the complainant at Rs. 18,37,200/- as the complainant cannot be allowed undue enrichment from such consumer complaint.
7. The original complainant feeling not satisfied by the aforesaid order, preferred this appeal and challenged the same mainly on the ground that the relief granted by the Forum is totally disproportionate to the harassment, agony, torture,  financial loss suffered and damage caused to his esteem and credit worthiness  and status.
8.  We heard the appellant/original complainant in person. None for the respondent was present. We however perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties. We also perused the copies of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record by both the parties.
9.  (A) The letter dated 17/7/2013 is filed by the complainant which is  addressed to him by the bank. The contents of the said letter reflect three facts namely

1. Information that the limit of subject account has been expired due to which the cheque was returned.
2. The reason mentioned in the written memo as “Funds Insufficient is wrong”
3.  The cheque was returned due to technical problem.

(B)  The complainants bank account statement which is filed on record reflects the cheque return charges of Rs. 79/-  being debited on 12/7/2013 and the same entry is reversed on 22/7/2013.

10. The only inference that can be drawn from the aforesaid documents is that the OP / bank  dishonored the cheque by assigning wrong reason of insufficient funds and therefore it reverse the entry  to credit from debit.

11. The complainant has not placed any documentary evidence on record to show that he faced criminal prosecution under section 138 of Negotiable Act or he was subject to  harassment due to such prosecution etc.

19. The Forum has rightly allowed the compensation proportionate to the above above deficiency in service rendered by the respondent bank. We find no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.

                     In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. The impugned order dated 28/8/2015, passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 67/2014, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur is confirmed.
3. No order as to cost in appeal
4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.