Presented by B.K.Pati, Member:- <br /> The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> A cheque bearing No. 891777 Dt.02/02/2009 for Rs. 4,63,700/-(Rupees four lac sixty three thousand seven hundred)only of State Bank of India, Khariar Bank, Opposite Party No.2(two) issued by one Rashmi Ranjan Chalan, Proprietor of M/s Jagdamba Auto Combine, Khariar against their liability to pay, had been deposited by the Complainant in his current account No. 30246693706 with the Opposite Party No.2(two) Bank on Dt.03/02/2009 which was duly credited in the account of the Complainant on the same date. On Dt.03/03/2009 the Complainant issued a cheque No.952863 Dt.03/03/2009 of Opposite Party No.1 (one) State Bank of India, Bargarh for Rs.5,25,000/-(Rupees five lac twenty five thousand)only intending to transfer the said amount to its account at Pubjab National Bank, Bargarh Branch but the cheque was not honored though there was sufficient balance, stating the reason “hold restriction existing in the account”. The Opposite Party No.1(one) by withholding Rs.3,85,095/-(Rupees three lac eighty five thousand ninety five)only without giving any reason has caused mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the Complainant. Another cheque bearing No.952865 Dt.09/03/2009 of State Bank of India, Bargarh Branch, Opposite Party No.1(one) for Rs. 3,70,000/-(Rupees three lac seventy thousand)only issued by the Complainant in favour of M/s Chandan Trading Company was dishonored for the reason “refer to drawer” and there was sufficient fund in his account. In spite of repeated request the Opposite Party No.1(one) has not stated the reason of non-payment of cheques and withholding Rs. 3,85,095/-(Rupees three lac eighty five thousand ninety five)only. On Dt. 19/03/2009 the Complainant received a copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Opposite Party No.2(two) advising to settle the issue so that the Complainant can avail the funds. The Complainant learnt from the Bank Statement that initially the Bank withheld Rs.3,85,095/-(Rupees three lac eighty five thousand ninety five)only and later debited Rs.4,63,700/-(Rupees four lac sixty three thousand seven hundred)only from the Complainant's account in two phases without any instruction from the Complainant.<br /> <br /> On Dt.02/05/2009, the Complainant received a Regd. Letter posted on Dt.30/04/2009 by the Opposite Party No.2(two) containing two banker's intimation alleged to have been issued on Dt.03/02/2009 and Dt.31/03/2009. The intimation Dt.03/02/2009 reveals that cheque No.891777 for Rs. 4,63,700/-(Rupees four lac sixty three thousand seven hundred)only has been dishonored and returned for the reason that “exceeds arrangement” and the intimation Dt.31/03/2009 reveals that the Opposite Party No.2(two) has debited Rs. 4,63,700/-(Rupees four lac sixty three thousand seven hundred)only from the Complainant's account on Dt.19/03/2009 and Dt.31/03/2009. The Complainant contends that the payer's account is with the Opposite Party No.2(two) and after verification, the cheque amount was debited from the payer's account but the same was again dishonored from the date of its presentation and the same was not communicated to the Complainant for months and part amount was withheld and the cheque amount was debited in phases. The Complainant alleges that the letter issued on Dt.30/04/2009, the Banker's intimation having been issued on Dt03/02/2009 and Dt.31/03/2009 amounts to negligence and deficient service of the Opposite Party No.2(two). The alleged non-collection of Rs.4,63,700/-(Rupees four lac sixty three thousand seven hundred)only is a cooked up story of the Opposite Parties to escape their negligent and deficient service because the account statement of the Opposite Parties discloses that the aforesaid amount had been duly collected and credited to the account of the Complainant. The Complainant also says that if the same amount was not collected and the cheque was dishonored on Dt.03/02/2009 than how and why Rs. 3,85,095/-(Rupees three lac eighty five thousand ninety five)only was with hold till Dt.31/03/2009 where as the cheque amount was Rs. 4,63,700/-(Rupees four lac sixty three thousand seven hundred)only. That the dishonoring of the Complainant's cheque though he had sufficient balance in his account, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> The Complainant prays for payment of an amount of Rs. 5,43,700/-(Rupees five lac forty three thousand seven hundred)only along with interest by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version admits that the Complainant had issued a cheque on Dt.03/03/2009 and the same was not honored as the amount credited to his account by Khariar Branch of State Bank of India, Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.03/02/2009 was held up by the said Brnach and the balance amount was not sufficient to honor the said cheque and it was returned unpaid with endorsement “hold restriction”. It contends that the cheque No. 952865 Dt.09/03/2009 issued by the Complainant in favour of M/s Chandan Trading Company was returned by this Opposite Party with endorsement of “referred to drawer” as a substantial amount of the Complainant's account was held up by Opposite Party No.2(two) and the fact was known to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1(one) was not aware of the reason for which Opposite Party No.2(two) has held up the amount from the account of the Complainant and as such he had written a letter to Opposite Party No.2(two) in this regard with a copy to the Complainant on Dt.19/03/2009.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) denies all allegations made against it by the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) in its version says that it had legally withheld (lien) of Rs. 3,85,095/-(Rupees three lac eighty five thousand ninety five)only which is within the statutory authority of Opposite Party No.2(two) and withholding of the said amount by Opposite Party No.1(one) as per the advise of Opposite Party No.2(two) is not negligence and deficient in service. Since the cheque amount of Rs. 4,63,700/-(Rupees four lac sixty three thousand seven hundred)only was dishonored the Opposite Party No.2(two) had debited the full amount as the cheque cannot be paid partially. As a Banking Rule the Opposite Party No.2(two) have to credit the presented amount and debit the amount simultaneously when the cheque is dishonored. Since the amount was withdrawn by the Complainant from Opposite Party No.1(one), the Opposite Party NO.2(two) could not recover the amount on the same date. Hence lien was worked and recovered when the amount was deposited with the account of the Complainant. The cheque was already dishonored on Dt.03/03/2009 and the Opposite Party No.2(two) had already advised the Complainant on the same day about the dishonor of cheque. Since there was no balance in the account of the Complainant the amount of cheque was recovered in two phases to cover the entire cheque amount. The final amount was recovered on Dt.31/03/2009 and the second letter was issued on the same date.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) prays for dismissal of complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Parties's version as well as the copy of documents filed by the Parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The cheques in question having been dishonored by the Opposite Party No.1(one) as per the advice the Opposite Party No.2(two) is admitted by both the Opposite Parties. That a Bank has got the power to withhold a cheque in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction cannot be disputed. But in the present case the Opposite Party No.2(two) has not supported its case that, it advised Opposite Party No.1(one) to withhold the cheques of the Complainant because there was no sufficient funds in the account from which the cheques were isssued. In the process the Complainant has been subjected to avoidable harassment. This amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2(two) towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> As a vindication of the position of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.2(two) is directed to pay to the Complainant a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards cost and compensation within thirty days hence, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.