ORDER
PER SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

The complainant is maintaining a savings bank account no. 58580 with
OP1for the last many years. On 6.3.2010, the complainant had submitted
a complaint with OP1 wherein  she had stated that she had lost a
folder containing important documents including 8-9 cheque leaves from
account no. 58580 out of which four chequs were blank which bore her
signatures.  She had issued instructions to OP1 to stop payent to
cheque nos 149388, 149389 and 149390.  This fact was duly noted by OP1
in its records on 15.3.2010 and a sum of Rs. 90/- was deducted from
the  account of the complainant as stop payment cheages .  It is
allegedby the complainant that on 16.7.2010 on getting enteries in her
passbook updated  she had noted that some personhad presented a chque
bearing no 149389 for encashment which was returnedunpaid by OP1 and a
sum of Rs 300/- was deducted as cheque return charges.  The
complainant had taken up the matter with OP1 and had also lodged
complaints with the police.  The complainant has alleged deficiency in
service on the part of the oPs in returning  the cheque by giving
reasons of insufficiency of funds rather than  “stop payment” and
further charging a sum ofRs 300/- as cheque returning charges. Since,
the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, she had approached
  this forum by means of the present complaint.
The complaint has been contested.
OP1 has filed a written statement and has denied any deficiency in
service on its part and has claimed  that the complaint is liable to
be  dismissed.
Para 2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement is
relevant for the purpose of  decision of this complaint and is
reproduced as under:-
2. That the complainant has not come with clean hands and has
suppressed the material facts before this Hon’ble Forum and as such
the same is liable to be dismissed. It is
submitted that one cheque bearing No. 149389 forRs.5 Lacs in the name
of one Mr. Vijay Kumar was received in
clearing by the opposite party No. 1 through State Bank of
India and the same was returned by the Opposite Party No. I
on 15.06.2010 and realized Rs.300/- as cheque returned
charges from the account of the complainant, it is mentioned
that the complainant has also filed a reply dated 11.12.2010 given by
the opposite party No.1, sought under RTI Act wherein it has been
clearly mentioned by the opposite party No.1 that the cheque No.149389
was presented for payment through clearing by State Bank of India on
15/06/2010 and second time on 29/07/20 10 payee of cheque being
Mr.Vijay Kumar.It has further been clarified that the cheque was
returned for the reasons insufficient funds on 15/06/2010 and on
29/07/20 10 the said cheque was returned for reason payment stopped by
drawer. So the allegations as mentioned in the complaint are totally
false and frivolous. By doing so, the opposite party No. 1 has not
committed any deficiency in services as alleged in the complaint. It
is further submitted that the cheques are being received through
clearing through electronic mode and as per the image of the said
cheque, it is reflected that the said cheque was containing two dates
one is of 9th September and the same was revalidated and a date for
the month of April, 2010 has been mentioned in the said cheque. It is
further to be noted that the complainant has stated that the said
cheque was misplaced on 06.03.20 10 along with other documents. It is
beyond imagination that when the said cheque was misplaced in the
month of March, 2010, then how the said cheque revalidated and a date
for the month of April, 2010 has been mentioned. It seems to the
opposite party No. 1 that the complainant is hi&ng the truth before
the Hon’ble Forum and on account of some dispute, the opposite parties
have been unnecessarily dragged into this false litigation. A copy of
cheuqe is being enclosed herewith. In view of the aforesaid facts the
complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.


The complaint has been contesed on merits.The OP has reiterated that
there is no deficieny in service on its part and that there are no
merits in this complaint.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The fact that OP1 was deficienct in rendering service is evident from
Ex CW1/12 which is a reply to an application vide which information
was  sought by the complainant under the  RTI act from the regional
Public Information Officer of OP1. This letter which is dated
9.3.2013 is relevant and inter-alia reads as under:-

Reg: Information sought under Right to Information Act, 2005
 With reference to your letter received by this office on 18.02.2013,
seeking certain informations under the RTI Act, 2005, please note that
authorities holding the information have provided the information as
under:

S. No. INFORMATION SOUGHT INFORMATION GIVEN
1. ON 15.3.2010, please  inform me why the bank charged Rs. 90/- from
my account in Karol Bagh Branch An amount of Rs. 90/- was debited as
stop payment charges.  3 (Three) cheques with starting series no. of
149388 were marked stop payment due to reason “ instrument reported
lost” on 15.3.2010.
2. Why they did not returned my cheque no. 149389 with the reason of “
stop payment”? Is it by mistake they mentioned/ returned insufficient
fund? Yes, the cheque no. 149389 (Amount   Rs.5,00,000/-) was returned
on 15.6.2010 with the reason “ insufficient funds” as there were no
sufficient balance in the account. However, in view of the fact stop
payment was marked for the cheque, the reason for cheque return should
have been “ Payment stopped by drawer”.
3. Why again they charged Rs. 300.00 from my account as there was not
my mistake and I informed well in time to them regarding my cheques.
I need to know the reason only for the date 15.3.2010 and 15.6.2010.
Rs 300/- was debited on 15.6.2010 as cheque return charges for cheque
no. 149389.


In case you wish to prefer an appeal under the RTI Act, you may do so
within a period of 30 days and the particulars of the appellants
authority are as follows.



A perusal of the aforesaid letter as  reproduced above shows that in
reply to question no. 2 , the regional public information officer has
clearly admitted that  since the fact of “stop payment” was marked on
the cheque , the reason for cheque return should have been payment
stopped by the drawer. In view of the said reply, we need  not dilate
the matter any  further. We hold that oP1 was deficient in rendering
services to the complainant. We hold that despite clear instructions
of the complainant to stop payment of the cheque in question, OP1 had
returned the chque with the remakrs “insufficiency of funds” and had
additionally charged a sum of Rs. 300/- as cheque returning charges.
We, therefore, direct OP1 as under:
1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 300/- along with interest @ 4%
p.a. from the date of debit  of the aforesaid amount till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for
pain and agony suffered by her.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date
of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on
the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP1 fails to comply
with this order, the complainant

may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27
of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
    File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................