G KANDASWAMY Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 16. 5. 2007 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai allowing appeal against the order dated 10. 7. 2003 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The District Forum had accepted the complaint with direction to the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation, Rs. 10,000 spent by the petitioner in defending the criminal complaint, refund amount of Rs. 75 being debited towards charges for "stop payment" of the cheque and cost.

(2.) PETITIONER/complainant was having a saving bank account with the respondent/ opposite party (s) bank. He made a complaint to the respondent of the missing of cheques and stop payment thereof. After 12 days of the receiving of instruction to stop payment on 31. 3. 2001, a cheque for Rs. 1,45,000 was returned by the respondent with the endorsement "no sufficient funds". This cheque was stated to have been stolen by one of the partners of the petitioner. Based on above endorsement, a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act etc. was filed by Venkata Reddy, partner, before the 3rd Additional Munsif Court, Rajahmundry against the petitioner. Petitioner alleged that in view of the said instruction, the respondent ought to have returned the cheque with the endorsement as "payment stopped" instead of "no sufficient funds" and because of the endorsement of "no sufficient funds" he was put to untold sufferings and financial loss. He had to attend the Court on each date of hearing. Alleging deficiency in service, a complaint seeking compensation was filed which was contested by the respondent, bank. It was alleged that on the date the cheque in question was presented, balance in the saving bank account of the petitioner was only Rs. 1,311. Therefore, cheque was returned with the endorsement - "no sufficient funds". It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of bank or the petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed.

(3.) BEFORE adverting to the submission advanced by Ms. Madhumita Bora for the petitioner, it will be profitable to refer to para Nos. 18 and 19 which has bearing in this case of the decision in M. M. T. C. Ltd. and Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr. , I (2002) BC 280 (SC)=viii (2001) SLT 83=iv (2001) CCR 316 (SC)=air 2002 SC 182. This decision has also been relied upon by the State Commission. Said paras read, thus: