This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 18-07-11 in the presence of Sri B.V.S.S. Prasad, advocate for complainant and of                             Sri B.M.N.Murthy, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing bothsides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-      The complainant filed this complaint under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.25,000/- for dishonoring the cheque though funds are available.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant is having ‘saving plus’ account with the                  2^nd opposite party bearing account No.10408563365.  On 07-12-10 the complainant issued the cheque bearing No.547300 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Guntur towards fixed deposit.   The said cheque was dishonored under the caption ‘funds insufficient’ by the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant got sufficient funds in his account with the 2^nd opposite party.    The conduct of the 1st opposite party is against the rules and procedural laws of banking and amounted to negligence.   The complainant rushed to Guntur on the next day by canceling all his personal and professional work to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Guntur.  On account of the false dishonored memo issued by the 1^st opposite party the authorities of Oriental Bank of Commerce showed gestures of disrespect. The complainant retired as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Chennai.  The complainant suffered mental agony and discomfort due to the attitude of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party issued a reply with false averments to the notice of the complainant. The complainant estimated the damages at Rs.25,000/-.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in brief is hereunder:

        This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the memo of dishonor of cheque was issued by the 1^st opposite party stationed at Vijayawada.   The complainant issued cheque as payable to ‘hisself Oriental Bank of Commerce, Guntur’ and as such is irregular.   The complainant did not mention his account as Saving plus on the cheque issued by him.    The complainant issued cheque on his SB account for Rs.1,00,000/- on 07-12-10.   On the date of presentation of cheque the complainant had Rs.13,597.34ps.   The cheque could not have been returned if the complainant mentioned saving plus on his cheque.   The complainant did not approach the Forum with true state of affairs.   None of the parties had shown disrespect towards the complainant.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.  

1. Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.B-1 on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties were marked respectively.

1. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
4. To what relief?

6.    Undisputed facts in this case are these:

1. The complainant had account with the 2^nd opposite party bearing No. 10408563365.
2. The complainant issued the cheque bearing No.547300 on 7-12-10 in favour of the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Ex.A-2=B-1).
3. The 1^st opposite party issued cheque return memo (Ex.A-1).
4. There was exchange of notices between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party (Ex.A-3 and                  A-4).

7.   POINT No.1:-    This Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case as the complainant issued cheque on the account he had with the 2^nd opposite party to M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce who in turn sent to the 1^st opposite party for collection.   The contention of the opposite parties regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is devoid of merit.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

8.   POINTS 2&3:-    The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not specifically mention on the said cheque as                ‘savings plus’ and irregular endorsement ‘hisself to Oriental Bank of Commerce’.   Be whatever it may be the nature of the account the account number of the complainant is 10408563365.   Ex.A-1 cheque return memo revealed that the cheque was returned for ‘funds insufficient’ by the 1^st opposite party.   Ex.A-5 is xerox copy of account of the complainant with the 1^st opposite party.  In Ex.A-5 on 06-12-10 the following was mentioned ‘UNCL Bal 0.00; CLR Bal .. 13,597.34 cr + MOD Bal; 739075.34 cr.’ Ex.A-5 clearly established that the complainant had sufficient balance to honour the cheque in question.   If the contention of the 1^st opposite party about the improper writing of the name of the payee and name of the account it could have find place on Ex.A-1 cheque return memo.   The said contention of the opposite parties therefore cannot be accepted.   The conduct of the 1^st opposite party in issuing Ex.A-1 cheque return memo amounted to deficiency of service. 

9.     The complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards disrespect and humiliation suffered by him at Oriental bank of Commerce due to dishonor of cheque.   Compensation to be awarded could not be windfall.   Compensation to be awarded should be just, fair and reasonable.   Considering the facts of the case awarding a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards damages will meet ends of justice.   In view of aforementioned discussions these points are answered accordingly against the opposite parties. 

10.  POINT No.4:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) towards compensation  and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.
2. The claim against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed as no relief was sought.
3. The above ordered amounts shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

        Dictated to Junior Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 28th day of              July, 2011.

            MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties: 

                                                                                              PRESIDENT