PRONOUNCED ON 29th APRIL, 2016 ORDER M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is to order dated 28.8.2015 in Appeal No. 543 of 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short “the State Commission”). By the impugned order, the State Commission confirmed the finding of the District Forum with respect to deficiency of service on behalf of the Petitioner Bank herein. 2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant had a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 1542 with the Opposite Party/Bank at their Khidirpur Branch Extension Counter. On 21.8.2010, the Respondent/Complainant had issued a Cheque bearing No. 201728 for Rs. 1,40,000/- in favour of M/s. Nirmal Bang Security Private limited for the purpose of purchase of shares. It is pleaded that the said drawee Company presented the cheque through their Banker being Axis Bank . The said cheque was not honoured by Canara Bank on the ground that the account was “inoperative”, despite the cheque related Saving Bank Account having a credit balance of Rs.1,49,516.12/- as on 21.8.2010. It is averred by the Complainant that this non-encashment of the cheque resulted in financial loss to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- and, therefore, he got issued a legal notice on 2.9.2010 to the Opposite Party Bank claiming pecuniary loss of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation and costs. There was no response to the legal notice, hence the Complaint before the District Forum. 3. The Opposite Party/Bank filed their written version, accepting their fault and had written a letter to the Complainant stating that the said cheque was returned due to human error which had happened due to the reasons beyond their control and requested the Complainant to present the cheque again. The letter dated 6.10.2010, addressed by the Bank was acknowledged by the Complainant. The Bank submits that there was no deficiency of service on their behalf as the cheque was dishonoured only by a bonafide mistake, which is admitted by them. 4. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint directing the Bank to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for dishonour of the cheque, Rs. One lakh towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs, within one month from the date of the order failing which the entire amount would carry interest at 10% p.a. from the date of default till the date of realisation. They were also directed to pay punitive damages of Rs. One lakh to the Consumer Welfare Fund within one month from the order, failing which the amount would attract interest at 10% p.a. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the Bank preferred an Appeal before the State Commission, which concurred with the finding of the District Forum observing as follows:- “The Memo of Appeal reveals the admission of dishonouring of the cheque in question by the Appellants/OPs-Bank. The copy of the passbook in respect of the Savings Account concerned shows the presence of sufficient credit balance in the said Account on the date of presentation of the cheque by the drawee-Company for encashment. The Appellants/OPs-Bank have not produced any cogent documentary evidence in support of the ‘bonafide’ mistake, as taken as a plea, except bare mention of the same, which cannot be accepted even by a man of ordinary prudence as a reasonable ground for dishonouring the cheque in question despite having sufficient credit balance at the time of presentation of the cheque. The matter is well-settled by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in ICICI Bank Vs. Sh. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal decided on 2.4.2014 in Revision Petition No. 532 of 2012, wherein it was held, “….the dishonouring of the Cheque No.161139 for Rs.1,15,627/-(One Lac fifteen thousand six hundred twenty-seven) was absolutely gross deficiency of service by the Petitioner’s Bank, as the respondent was having sufficient funds in his account at that time”. The compensation as awarded by the Ld. District Forum does not appear to be unrealistic or exaggerated as the compensation not only serves the purpose of recompensing the sufferer but also aims at bringing about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider in a case of proven deficiency in service, as was held in a decision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided on 20.9.2000 in Civil Appeal No. 767 of 2000 [Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors.]. On the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the evidence on record and submission by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant weigh more than that of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/OPs-Bank. In view of the above discussion we have no hesitation in holding that there is no such illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment and order that warrants our interference with the same. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order is affirmed. No order as to costs. The Misc. Application bearing No. MA/340/2012 filed by the Appellants is also disposed of”. 6. Dis-satisfied with this order, the Petitioner Bank preferred this Revision Petition on the ground that the cheque was returned due to bonafide reasons beyond the control of the Petitioner and that the Respondent did not present a fresh cheque or choose to pay in cash to the share broker. He argued that before selling the said shares, the share broker had given the Respondent/Complainant an option to pay in cash the equivalent amount of the cheque; to obtain a letter from the Petitioner Bank to the effect that the said cheque was dishonoured by mistake; to issue another cheque of the equivalent amount of the said cheque from a different Bank. He submitted that the record that the Complainant did not exercise any of the aforementioned options. 7. A brief perusal of the Complaint and the affidavit filed by the Complainant shows that there was sufficient cash balance in the account and it was admittedly a bonafide mistake by the Petitioner Bank in dishonouring the cheque on the ground that the account was “inoperative”. It is the main case of the Complainant that Nirmal Bang Security Private Limited sold all the purchased shares of the Complainant at the total price of Nifty 5500 CE Rs. 26,000/- (approx.) and Nifty 5500 PE of Rs. 95,000/- (approx..) on dated 23.08.2010 as a result of which the Complainant faced a huge loss of Rs.2,67,275/-. 8. An Investigation was done by the Petitioner Bank and it was brought to their knowledge on 12.10.2010 that due to use of non MICR cheque books the inward clearing cheque was delivered to the representative of the Extension Counter for the purpose of depicting in the respective party’s accounts. As the distance between the Branch and the Extension Counter was 7 kilometers, the balance clearance was conducted over the phone due to disturbance of the network. The concerned representative noted the wrong account number and, therefore, the said cheque was returned with the remarks “in-operative”. 9. It is observed from the record that the cheque was dishonoured on 21.8.2010 and it is the Respondent/Complainant’s case that the share broker sold the shares on 23.8.2010. The material on record evidences that the Complainant had suffered monetary loss on account of the dishonouring of the cheque. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the concurrent finding of fact by both the lower Fora with respect to deficiency of service and the specific admission of the Petitioner/Bank that there was a bonafide mistake, the Complainant deserves to be compensated. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Citibank N.A. vs. Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2008)15 SCC 102, in an appeal preferred by the Bank, held as follows: “The Complainant Company, Geekay filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka at Bangalore for recovering the value of goods with interest and expenses amounting to Rs. 14,37,000/-. By judgment and order dated 30.4.1997, the State Commission dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved against the order dated 30.4.1997 of the State Commission, the complainant Geekay filed an appeal before the National Commission. The National Commission after detailed consideration of the matter and referring to various documents filed by the parties and necessary commercial instructions having bearing on the subject found that the State Bank of Mysore as well as Citibank N.A., New York are jointly and severally responsible for deficiency in service and granted a compensation in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs to Geekay and directed Citibank N.A. to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant-Geekay. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the National Commission cannot be faulted with and we are in complete agreement with the National Commission that there was a deficiency in service by the Citibank N.A., New York and consequently by the State Bank of Mysore also. Therefore, compensation has been adequately awarded for deficiency in service against both the Banks and it would be open for the State Bank of Mysore to recover the said compensation from the Citibank, N.A. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This appeal filed by Geekay for not getting adequate compensation for the total amount of loss incurred by it is misconceived. For the recovery of total amount of loss, it is open for the appellant Geekay to file a civil suit before the appropriate Court which, we are informed has already been filed. The National Commission could have awarded compensation only for the deficiency of service only. The said compensation has been awarded by the National Commission. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by Geekay also. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs insofar as proceedings before this Court are concerned”. 11. The National Commission in State Bank of Patiala vs. Rajender Lal and Anr. (IV) 2003 CPJ 53 (NC); in Canara Bank vs. Sudhir Ahuja, I (2007) CPJ 1 NC and in Shri A.P. Bopanna vs. Kodagu District Co. Op. Central Bank (Revision Petition No. 5 of 2005, decided on 17.12.2008), held that a bank on ground of deficiency in service can be burdened with some compensation only but it cannot be made to pay the entire cheque amount. 12. In the instant case, the District Forum had awarded Rs. 3 lakhs for dishonouring of the cheque, Rs. one lakh towards compensation and Rs. one lakh towards punitive damages with default interest of 10% and costs of Rs. 10,000/-. As the material on record evidences that the Complainant had suffered monetary loss, keeping in view the aforementioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Commission, a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- is considered just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- and the default interest of 10% awarded by the Fora below stand confirmed. The rest of the awarded amounts are set aside. These amounts are directed to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount would attract an interest of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of realisation. 13. In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed in part and orders of the Fora below are modified to the extent indicated above. 14. I.A. No. 8256 of 2015 stands disposed of. | 
