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 ........ Petitioner (s) R/O 249, DR. NANJAPPA ROAD, COIMBATORE - 18 Vs. 1. CANARA BANK THROUGH SHRI R.V. SHASTRY, CHAIRMAN H.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 BEFORE:

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr. R.S. Sahni, Advocate : 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. account No.7488 on the said date. The petitioner/complainant, The customer informed the however, had a Bank balance of Rs.13,16,519.53 p. in the current 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 the petitioners 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

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

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

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

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 incident cannot 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 rebounced 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

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.

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) MEMBER

St/18