NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION5

8/3/2019 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION5

1/8

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 3305 OF 2008

(Against the order dated 01.07.2008in Appeal No.331/2005

of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu)M/S COIMBATORE EARTHMOVERS

AND POWER GENERATORS

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS

PARTNER SHRI GURPREET SINGH

R/O 249, DR. NANJAPPA ROAD,

COIMBATORE - 18

........ Petitioner (s)

Vs.

1. CANARA BANK

THROUGH SHRI R.V. SHASTRY,

CHAIRMANH.O. 112, J.C. ROAD,

BANGALORE-560001

2. CANARA BANK

MADURAI CIRCLE,

EAST VELI STREET,

ST. MARYS COMPLEX,

MADURAI - 625001

3. CANARA BANK

THRU. SHRI K.N. KRISHNAPPA,HEAD QUARTERS ROAD

BRANCH, COIMBATORE-641018

4. CANARA BANK

THROUGH SHRI V.R. SHARMA,

SR. MANAGER

HEAD QUARTERS ROAD

BRANCH, COIMBATORE-641018

5. CANARA BANK

THRU. SHRI D.R.P. SUNDRAM,ASST. GENERAL MANAGER

D.B. ROAD, R.S. PURAM,

COIMBATORE - 2

........ Respondent (s)

BEFORE:


2/8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Sahni, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Dewan, Advocate with

Mr. Rajiv Samaiyar, Advocate

Pronounced on :_21.05.2009

ORDER

PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

The petitioner in the normal course of their business dealings

issued a cheque for Rs.13,486/- in favour of their customer M/s SMJ

Electricals, Coimbatore. The cheque was issued from their current

A/c No.7488 maintained with the Canara Bank, Headquarter Road

Branch, Coimbatore. The customer presented this cheque for credit

into his account with his banker. They were, however, informed on

28.8.2002 that the cheque has been dishonoured on the ground of

insufficient funds in the account. The petitioner/complainant,

however, had a Bank balance of Rs.13,16,519.53 p. in the current

account No.7488 on the said date. The customer informed the

petitioner about the rebouncing of their cheque for want of adequate

funds which came as a big shock and surprise to the petitioner. As

per the petitioner/complainant, this incident spread like wild fire in the

business circle. The petitioner was a well established business firm

and its reputation was very badly affected, specially amongst thepetitioners customers and suppliers. A complaint, therefore, was

filed before the District Forum seeking a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the

respondent/opposite parties Bank as compensation towards the


3/8

deficiency in service resulting in the loss of reputation, mental agony

etc. and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

The District Forum after hearing the counsel for the parties

came to the conclusion that the respondent/opposite parties Bank

had committed deficiency in service to the complainant by

dishonouring their cheque issued to their customer during the

business transaction despite the fact that the petitioner/complainant

was having a good amount, as Bank balance. The District Forum,

thereafter, holding the respondent Bank accountable for deficiency

in service resulting in the loss of reputation to the petitioner/

complainant, mental agony and suffering etc. proceeded to award a

compensation of Rs.6 lakhs and also allowed a sum of Rs.5000/-

towards the cost of litigation.

Aggrieved upon the order passed by the District Forum, the

respondent/opposite parties Bank filed an appeal before the State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai, Tamil Nadu (for

short State Commission). The State Commission vide its detailed

order dated 1.7.2008 arrived at the finding that while the officials of

the Bank indeed committed a mistake in returning the cheque for

Rs.13,486/- when sufficient funds were available in the current

account of the petitioner/complainant, the mistake had been quickly

realized and necessary amends were sought to be made by the

officials of the Bank by meeting the Managing partner and explaining

to him the circumstances under which the unhappy and unwarranted

incident took place. After a thorough consideration of the entire

episode, the State Commission was of the view that the

petitioner/complainant ought to have shown the grace to condone the


4/8

mistake. All the same, the State Commission modified the order of

the District Forum and awarded the value of the cheque i.e.

Rs.13,486/- to be paid by the respondent/opposite parties Bank to

the petitioner as against Rs.6 lakhs ordered by the District Forum

while retaining the cost of litigation at Rs.5000/-.

It is this order of the State Commission which is being

challenged in this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has vehemently

argued that the opposite parties having admitted that they had

committed a gross mistake in returning the cheque stating

insufficiency of funds as the reason while the balance in the account

was more than Rs.13 lakhs, the District Forum had rightly taken into

consideration, the standing of the petitioner firm not only amongst

the business fraternity but also in the city of Coimbatore as a

prominent member of a minority community and had rightly awarded

the compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. The State Commission has in an

arbitrary manner held that the matter was not so serious as to justify

such a compensation. Learned counsel submits that the State

Commission has failed to appreciate that the story of the first

numerical letter 7 was affixed over the printed column of account No.

in an over-lapping manner in the cheque in question and therefore,

the first number 7 was not visible and further, there was an

impression like numerical letter 1 after the last three numbers 488

in the said cheque was a flimsy excuse. The fact that, the higher

authorities of the respondent Bank have taken no action against the

erring official, goes to show that they have no respect for the

sentiments of their valued customers. Assailing the conduct of the


5/8

respondent/opposite parties Bank, the counsel has further

submitted that the State Commission failed to take note of the fact

that the respondent/opposite parties Bank had issued a draft in the

name of the customer without their instructions and arbitrarily debited

the amount from his account without any authority. Thus, to say the

least, they compounded the deficiency. Contending that although the

loss of reputation of an established business firm cannot be

measured in terms of money, a sum of Rs.13,486/- which is very

meager cannot be the basis of compensation. Learned counsel

therefore submits that the order passed by the State Commission

deserves to be set aside and fully justified order passed by the

District Forum be restored.

Learned counsel for the respondent/opposite parties Bank

has justified the order passed by the State Commission contending

that grievance of the petitioner/complainant was not so much on the

incident of return of his cheque for which not only the customer had

been approached and explained the inadvertent mistake but Senior

Officers of the Bank had met the petitioner/complainant at the level

of their Managing partner to tender an apology for the inadvertent and

unintentional episode leading to the dishonour of the cheque. In fact,

after the repeated apology, the Chief Manager of the Branch had

personally met the Managing partner and regretted the incident and

at one stage, the Managing partner of the petitioner/complainant had

agreed to give up his claim for compensation ; thus putting an end to

the issue. That, a complaint was filed before the District Forum after

more than a year of the incident and despite repeated apologies for

the inadvertent and unintentional mistake on part of their official goes


6/8

to show that the real cause for pursuing the matter related to the

rejection of a request for loan by one Hameed Ibrahim whose case

had been recommended by the Managing partner. Contending that

the complainant had not suffered any loss of reputation or undergone

any mental agony, the counsel submits that the award of the State

Commission, equal to the value of the cheque which was returned is

fully justified and no interference in revision is called for.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length as

also have perused the records of the case.

The short point for consideration is, as to whether in the

background of the dishonour of the cheque of the

petitioner/complainant issued to one of its customers deserves a

compensation of Rs.6 lakhs as awarded by the District forum? The

State Commission after a detailed discussions of the evidence on

record has given its reason as to why the incidentcannot be viewed

as an instance of gross negligence specially in the context of the

mistake having been detected immediately after the facts came to

their notice and they have made all out efforts to salvage the

situation.

While the respondent Bank admits that the cheque re-

bounced on the ground of insufficient funds, their explanation that the

reference to Bank A/c No.4881 was because of the blurring of the

figures below the rubber stamp over the cheque ; cannot be

completely ignored. Further, we notice that not only the customer to

whom the cheque had been issued by the complainant was

approached by the Bank authorities and explained that it indeed was


7/8

not a case of dishonoured of a cheque but an inadvertent mistake

and further a Bank draft for that amount had been issued to the

customer which goes to show their sincerity to recoup the damage,

even though subsequently, the complainant has objected to the draft

being issued without his consent. The fact that the Managing partner

of the complainant-firm was repeatedly approached and finally

personally met with by the Chief Manager of the Bank who expressed

the regret explaining the background of the inadvertent and

unintentional mistake, further goes to show that respondent Bank

did everything that was required to be done to assuage the ruffled

feelings of the complainant. When viewed in the context of, the

complaint being filed after a period of one year, we fully agree with

the findings of the State Commission that there was nothing to show

that the complainants reputation has taken a beating or that it fell in

the business circle. Evidently the petitioner/ complainant has

suffered no monetary loss. The fact that even after the incident, the

petitioner/complainant continues to maintain his accounts and carries

on his business activities through transaction from the same Bank A/c

goes to show that there has been no damage, much less serious

damage to the reputation of the petitioner. The un-pleasantness over

such incidents last for a short while and as seen from the facts of the

case, it had perhaps been forgotten but for some reason which we

are not able to appreciate, the petitioner/ complainant has preferred

to revive the same, which is not justified.


8/8

We do not find that the State Commission has committed any

illegality or has exercised its jurisdiction illegally. The revision under

the circumstances, is dismissed, however, with no order as to cost.

Sd/(R.K. BATTA)

(PRESIDING MEMBER)

Sd/(S.K. NAIK)

MEMBERSt/18

Documents

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION5