By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The complaint was filed on 6-5-2008 by Sri. Geethanandan.V.P. alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant was the Account holder of S.B. Account No.2253 with the opposite party. As on 4-9-2006 there was Rs. 714.40 of balance in his account. So he had given a written instruction for stop payment on 28-9-2006 of a cheque vide No.184688 belonging to the complainant. Inspite of the written instruction for stop payment of the cheque the opposite party neglecting the instruction had dishonoured the cheque. A cheque return memo was issued, when the above cheque was presented stating the reason for dishonour as insufficient funds. The opposite party also had deducted Rs.274/- in this connection. This act of opposite party of returning the cheque caused many hardships and mental agony to the complainant. Complainant is alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank for dishonouring the cheque even after having a written instruction for stop payment of that particular cheque. The bank also did not inform the complainant either orally or by any written instruction about deducting amount for not having minimum balance in the account. Hence this petition seeking relief is filed by the complainant. Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted. The opposite party admits that the complainant is an account holder with the opposite party bank at Panangad branch. The complainant had given written instruction to stop payment in respect of cheque No.184688. This cheque was dishonoured by the opposite party and a memo was issued stating insufficient funds. Opposite party denies the allegation that Rs. 274/- was deducted from the account of the complainant for not keeping minimum balance in the account. Only Rs.50/- was debited from the account of the complainant towards cheque return charges. There was no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. There was no sufficient balance in the account of the complainant to honour the cheque No. 184688. Opposite party had issued the memo stating the truth. There is no good faith and merit in the complaint. The opposite party is not bound to pay any amount to the complainant. O.P. prays to dismiss the complaint with costs to the opposite party. Point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on complainant’s side. Opposite party was examined as RW1. No documents marked on opposite party’s side. The complainant was an account holder with the opposite party. He had given instructions to stop payment of cheque No.184688. When the cheque was presented the opposite party had dishonoured the cheque neglecting the stop payment instruction of the complainant. The reason for dishonouring the cheque was stated as ‘insufficient funds’. According to the complainant the opposite party also had deducted Rs.274/- from the complainant’s account in this connection. The act of the opposite party of returning the cheque neglecting the stop payment instruction and deducting Rs.274/- in this connection is alleged to be negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party by the complainant. The opposite party argued that a memo of insufficiency of funds was issued and cheque was returned because there was no sufficient fund in the account of the complainant. The complainant was not keeping sufficient balance to honour the cheque at the relevant time. The bank has issued a memo stating insufficient funds because there was no sufficient fund to honour the cheque. The complainant was examined as PW1 has stated in his deposition Page-1 Cª cheque honour ¨Oà¡u Alm¬h¡i J¡m® B ohi« F¨Ê bank account v DÙ¡i¢y¼¢¿ F¼Y¤ mj¢i¡X®. S¡u stop payment letter 28/09/2006 c® bank v ¨J¡T¤·¢y¼¤.PW1 has further admitted in his deposition Page-2 that the bank had issued insufficient funds memo because there was no sufficient funds in his account F¨Ê account-v hY¢i¡i Y¤J C¿¡·Y¢c¡k¡X® bank insufficient funds F¼® memo ¨J¡T¤·Y® F¼¤ dsº¡v mj¢i¡X®. Another point the complainant has complained is that an amount of Rs.274/- had been deducted from his account by the opposite party. According to opposite party O.P. has deducted only Rs.50/- towards the cheque return charges. The complainant has not produced any document to show that O.P. had deducted Rs.274/- from his account. Considering all the facts presented before the Forum by both parties we are of the opinion that the bank had issued the memo because there was no sufficient fund in the account of the complainant. This act of opposite party cannot be alleged as negligent or deficiency in service. If there was enough money in the account and the opposite party had issued such a memo neglecting the instruction of the complainant, then it becomes deficiency and negligent on the part of O.P. In this particular case the Forum cannot find any negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief. In the result the petition is liable to be dismissed. Pronounced in the open court this the 4th day of August 2010. Date of filing: 06.05.2008. SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant : A1.Copy of relevant pages of S.B. Account pass book of the complainantdt.23.12.03. A2.Copy of the lawyer notice dtd.10.09.07 sent by the complainant along with postal receipt and acknowledgement card. A3. Reply notice dtd. 04.10.07. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil Witness examined for the complainant: PW1. Geethanandan (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party. RW1. Govind, South Indian Bank Ltd., Panangad. Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
| | [HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member | | 
