PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The germane facts to this case are as follows. The complainant-Ramswaroop Kumawat had a zero balance salary saving account with the Bank as an employee of Khaitan Electricals Ltd. It may be mentioned here that zero balance salary account means that the bank has to clear the amount, without caring how much amount is left. The complainant had taken a loan from his employer-Khaitan Electricals Ltd. and the EMI of the loan was Rs. 2500/- per month. The complainant issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 09.06.2008 in the name of Khaitan Electricals Ltd. for payment of two months EMI. The Khaitan Electricals Ltd. submitted the aforesaid cheque in its banker, State Bank of Patiala on 24.06.2008, but the cheque was dishonoured by ICICI Bank Ltd., on the ground of insufficient amount in the complainant’s account and the cheque was returned to the complainant. 2. Subsequently, it transpired that as a matter of fact, the complainant had an amount of Rs. 5,007.25 in the account on 24.06.2008 but the cheque was bounced. Despite of these facts, the ICICI Bank also deducted Rs. 393/- against the dishonoured cheque. -3- 3. In its defence, the bank stated that due to technical mistake, the cheque was dishonoured. In para-4 of the complaint, the respondent stated verbatim: “4. That in reply to para no. 4 of the complaint it is stated that opposite parties debited the amount of Rs. 5,000/- in the account of complainant but because of technical mistake the cheque of other account holder was to be taken back but the cheque of complainant was returned back.” 4. It clearly means that the cheque of the bank was dishonoured on 24.06.2009. No amount of rhetoric can change the reality. The State Commission order clearly goes to show that the copy of the statement of account also reveals that there was sufficient amount. It is further transpired that the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured. 5. However, Annexure-3 produced by the Bank shows that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- against the cheqeue No. 542487 was paid to the Khaitan Electricals Ltd. It clearly goes to show that the bank has tried to show that the cheque was honoured and thus false statement was submitted by the Bank before the learned District Forum. It is very strange that on one hand, the petitioner submits that there was a technical mistake and on the other hand, the amount has been shown as paid. Counsel for the petitioner submits that they have realized their -4- mistake after receiving the notice from the District Forum and the amount was reversed on 23.06.2009. 6. The District Forum allowed the complaint and granted the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 393/- from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment at the rate of 24% interest per annum and compensation for mental agony in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, out of the same Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid to the complainant and Rs. 9,50,000/- was to be paid in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, Jaipur and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- were to be paid. Proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. were also ordered. 7. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum. It was ordered that the complainant would receive from the Bank Rs. 5,000/- plus Rs. 393/-, total Rs. 5393/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the order of the District Forum. The appellant bank was further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only as compensation to the complainant instead of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the District Forum. The Bank was directed not to deposit Rs. 9,50,000/- in the State Consumer Welfare Fund. 8. Besides the argument advanced above the counsel for the petitioner further argued that no prior notice was given to the bank by the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his contentions -5- were not examined by the State Commission. We have heard counsel for the petitioner for the last half an hour and while dictating the judgment, counsel disrupted us a number of times and we hope that he has no other contention to make. 9. Instead of coming to point the counsel for the petitioner tried to stretch things a bit far. The purpose of law is to prevent strong always having their way. By dishonouring the cheque of the complainant, it must have led the complainant to anger, anguish, frustration, sadness, mental agony. Again there is a clumsy attempt to turn the tables by correcting the entries subsequently. This dealing with the customer is sans ethics, value and moral compass leading to the shame to the person i.e. complainant and family members and the image of the complainant stood tarnished in the society and his office. Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of Legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation see Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital AIR 2000 SC 318. The petitioner instead of setting their own house in order, preferred to file this frivolous revision petition unashamedly. -6- The revision petition is meritless and is therefore dismissed. | 
