Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 17.07.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as Compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant is engaged in providing computer courses to desirous students in the name and style of Kautilya Computer Courses for his livelihood. The complainant has savings account bearing no. 899 with opposite party no. 2 i.e. Canara Bank, Patliputra Branch, Patna. The complainant, in order to remit the amount of Rs. 85,310/-had issued a cheque bearing no. 125338 dated 02.07.2013 in favour of Sobhit University, Meerut because Kautilya Computer Courses is affiliated with Sobhit University, Meerut, U.P.
The grievance of the complainant is that the above mentioned cheque on presentation returned unpaid vide Bank return memo dated 31.08.2013 as will appear from annexure – 1 and 2 assigning the reason insufficient opening balance although the complainant had much more fund in his above saving account which is a sweeping/sweep out to facility saving account to honor the aforesaid cheque. However, the complainant immediately paid the aforesaid money to the Sobhit University to save his reputation and goodwill. Thereafter the complainant made protest to opposite party Bank and wanted to know the reason to dishonor his cheque despite sufficient amount in his saving account at that time.
It is needless to say that later on vide annexure – 4, the Bank has admitted that at the relevant time there was sufficiency balance in the savings account of the complainant.
No any written statement has been filed on behalf of Bank. However, at the fag end of the case the learned counsel for the opposite parties filed a petition requesting to hear him and as such he was heard.
Heard both the parties.
At the time of hearing of this case the learned counsel for the opposite parties has stated that for the technical reason beyond the control of Bank the aforesaid occurrence had happened.
It goes without saying that the complainant has stated the aforesaid fact on solemn affirmation and there is no counter version of the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has very fairly stated that due to technical snag the cheque could not be honored.
It is needless to say that not honoring a cheque by a Bank despite sufficient balance is nothing but a gross negligence on the part of the bank.
For the reason stated above we direct the opposite parties ( Bank) to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months from the date of date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will pay 10% interest on the above said amount of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only )till its final payment.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
