Bank of maharashtra

**adv.sumit** · 10-07-2009, 12:17 PM

COMPLAINANT

BY-SRI. K.SUBBA RAO,

SRI. P.SATYANARAYANA,

ADVOCATES, BELLARY.

//VS//

SRI. K. NARASIMHA MURTHY,

S/O K. KRISHNA MOORTHY,

R/O D.NO.1, KADLABALA COMPOUND,

THE BRANCH MANAGER,

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,

KALAMMA STREET, BELLARY.

//JUDGMENT//

This is the complaint filed by Complainant K.Narasimha Murthy against Respondent Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Bellary under Sec-12 of C.P.Act for to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.

2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that;

He is maintaining Savings Account bearing No.S.B. A/c No.2013449 in Respondent Bank. On 16/03/2009 he remitted Rs.10,000/- by cheque drawn on the Corporation Bank of Bellary Branch with other Demand Draft for Rs.5,900/-. Thereafter, he issued three cheques to LIC of India, Bellary. Out of the said three cheques, one cheque issued to LIC of India, Bellary bearing No.28241 not honoured by the Respondent Bank for the reasons known to it.

It was brought to the notice of Petitioner by the LIC, Bellary. Therefore, he deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 24/03/2009 for to clear of the LIC cheque. The Respondent Bank not cleared the cheque bearing No.28241 even though there was sufficient fund in his Account as on the date of presentation. Due to the negligent act of Respondent Bank, he suffered financial loss and mental agony. He issued notice, but Respondent Bank failed to rectify the mistakes. Hence, this complaint is filed by him against the Respondent Bank for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

3. The Respondent Bank appeared through its Advocate and filed Written Version by admitting the fact that the Complainant is holding S.B. Account and depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque drawn on Corporation Bank bearing No.571951 on 16/03/2009 with local Demand Draft of Rs.5,900/- for collection.

Due to misplacement of the cheque bearing No.571951 in its Bank the amount of Rs.10,000/- could not be credited to his Account. On 24/03/2009 the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in his S.B. Account and un-cashed cheque bearing No.28241 was cleared in favour of LIC, Bellary. Misplaced cheque bearing No.571951 for Rs.10,000/- was traced out on 09/04/2009. Thereafter, the amount was credited to his S.B. Account on 13/04/2009. There was no negligence on the part of the Bank, but it is mistake of concerned clerk in the Bank. Accordingly, it was prayed by it to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.

4. In view of the pleadings of parties, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that;

1.

Whether the Complainant proves that the Respondent Bank illegally dishonoured the cheque bearing N.28241 for Rs.15,000/- presented by him payable to LIC of India, Bellary on 24/03/2009 as short of fund in his S.B. A/c No. 2013449 even though there was sufficient fund in his Account and thereafter till 13/04/2009 which is the date of crediting the said cheque amount in his S.B. Account the Respondent Bank shown its negligence in crediting the amount in proper and reasonable time and thereby the Respondent Bank found guilty under deficiency in its service?

2.

Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed in this complaint?

3.

To what relief the Complainant is entitled for?

//POINTS//

5. Our findings on the above points are as under.

Point No.1:

In Affirmative.

Point No.2:

As discussed in detail in the body of this Judgment.

Point No.3:

In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we pass the final order for the following;

//REASONS//
Point Nos.1 & 2: -

6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two points, the affidavit evidence of Complainant was filed, he was noted as P.W.1. Documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 are marked. No Written Arguments filed. On the other hand, the affidavit evidence of the Manager of Respondent Bank was filed, he was noted as R.W.1. Document Ex.R.1 is marked. No Written Arguments filed.

7. Some of the following points are undisputed points in between the parties.

1.

Operating of S.B. A/c No.2013449 by the Complainant in the Respondent Bank is not in dispute.

2.

It is further undisputed fact that, the cheque amount of Rs.10,000/- of the cheque bearing No.571951 was not given credit to the Account of Complainant on the date of presentation of it by him or immediately thereafter, but the amount was given credit to his Account on 13/04/2009 by the Respondent Bank.

3.

It is undisputed fact that the Complainant presented cheque bearing No.28241 issued in the name of LIC of India, Bellary for Rs.15,000/- on 21/03/2009 in the Respondent Bank is not in dispute.

4.

It is further undisputed fact that, on 24/03/2009 the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- to honour the cheque bearing No.28241 payable to LIC of India, Bellary and thereafter the said amount was paid to LIC of India, Bellary by the Respondent Bank.

8. In view of the above said undisputed facts between the parties, documents of Complainant Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and document Ex.R.1 need not required much appreciation.

9. The Complainant’s contention is that, cheque bearing No.28241 issued by him payable to LIC of India, Bellary was not honoured and thereby Respondent Bank made him to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in cash to his Account on 16/03/2009 even though there was sufficient fund in his Account due to remittance of Rs.10,000/- vide cheque bearing No.571951 and Demand Draft for Rs.5,900/- on 16/03/2009 and thereby the Respondent found guilty under deficiency in its service.

10. The learned advocate for Respondent Bank submitted before us that, cheque bearing No.571195 for Rs.10,000/- presented by the Complainant was misplaced. It traced out on 09/04/2009 and amount was credited to his Account on 13/04/2009. All these facts have informed to the Complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank.

11. No doubt there is delay round about one month in crediting the amount of Rs.10,000/-by the Respondent Bank to the Account of Complainant in respect of cheque No.571195. Now the short point for our consideration is whether such delay in not crediting the amount to the Account of Complainant and allowing him to deposit a cash amount of Rs.10,000/- towards payment of cheque bearing No.28241 payable to LIC of India, Bellary is amounting to deficiency in its service.

12. We have no records from the side of the Respondent Bank to hold that there were bonafide reasons for it to cause such delay in giving credit the amount to the Complainant’s Account. Absolutely the Respondent has no records substantiate this contention, Bank is responsible to answer for the negligence of its Officials. Therefore, we are of the view that, the entire facts and circumstances of this case in the light of the above said admitted facts, the Complainant satisfactorily proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent Bank towards him in the said transaction. Hence, we answered Point No.1 in affirmative.

13. As regards to the reliefs as claimed by the Complainant, he requested us to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages, deficiency in service and mental agony. There are no such special circumstances out coming to award such huge amount under these heads. However, we have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent Bank to the Complainant. As such, we are of the view that, granting a lump sum amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service is proper and reasonable amount. Accordingly, it is granted.

14. The Complainant prayed for to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards cost. This amount is exorbitant and excessive. By taking into consideration of entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that, granting an amount of Rs.2,000/- in lump sum towards cost of this litigation is proper and reasonable amount. Accordingly, it is granted and thereby we answered Point No.2 accordingly.

Point No.3: -

15. In view of findings on Point Nos.1 & 2, we pass the following;

//ORDER//

The complaint filed by the Complainant is partly allowed with cost.

The Complainant is entitled to recover total sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) including cost from the Respondent Bank.

The Respondent Bank is hereby granted one month time from the date of this Judgment for to make the payment of total sum as stated above to the Complainant.

**adv.sumit** · 10-12-2009, 10:08 AM

Smt.Vijayakumari D/o. Jogappa Nayaka,

Aged about 43 years,

R/at Sri Ranga Nilaya, Complainant

Vivekananda Road

AND

1. The Manager,

Bank of Maharastra,

B.G.Palya Circle, opposite parties

B.H.Road, Tumkur

2. Smt.Padmaja D/o. Janardhan,

Aged about 40 years,

No.93, 10th Cross, 3rd Block,

Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore

ORDER

2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an order against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as the OPs for short) to award a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and other expenses.

3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:

It is contended that, she holds a SB account bearing No.20129617677 (old No.1262) since 2002 and she has been given cheque book issued by the 1st OP. She claims that, since then, she has been making good transaction with the 1st OP.

4. It is further contended that, the complainant due to loss of her SB account pass book and cheque book made a representation before the 1st OP on 11-6-2007 and sought for issuance of duplicate pass book and also to stop payments of the cheque leafs vide No.442263, 442264, 442265, 442266, 442268, 442269 and 224470. The 1st OP had pursued the complainant to give a written request and collected Rs.200/- and Rs.150/- as a service charge for making the “stop payment” of the above said cheque leafs and Rs.50/- for issuing a duplicate pass book on the same day. After that, the complainant had received a duplicate pass book alongwith new cheque book.

5. It is further contended that, she was shocked and surprised when received summons from the court on a criminal complaint filed u/s 138 of NI Act by the 2nd OP. It is alleged that, the 2nd OP by misusing the lost cheque leaf bearing No.442270 presented the cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- by forging the signature of the complainant. She was further shocked to know that the 1st OP had entertained the cheque and returned with a shara “Insufficient funds” on 31-1-2008 eventhough he had received the representation of the complainant to stop payment and collected charges of Rs.350/- for taking needful action.

6. It is further contended that, the complainant in her representation given to the 1st OP had clearly mentioned that, the said cheque book and pass book were lost. The 1st OP when received the cheque leaf No.442270 for encashment had neither informed the complainant nor the police or taken steps to stop the payment of the cheque or given an endorsement to the concerned “stop payment”. Instead of issuing an endorsement of stop payment, the 1st OP dishonoured the cheque with an endorsement “Insufficient of Fund”. Due to the negligent service of the 1st OP and the illegal act of 2nd OP, she has been made to suffer in the eye of public and also forced to face a criminal trial before the 16th Additional CMM at Bangalore in CC.No.10153/2008.

7. Therefore, she claims compensation of Rs.3,00,000 from the 1st OP. Hence this complaint.

8. Among the OPs who have been notified of the complaint, the 1st OP put in his appearance through his counsel and resisted the same by filing his objections. The 2nd OP has failed to appear before this forum, hence, she is placed exparte.

9. The gist of the written statement is as follows:

In the written statement filed by the 1st OP, it is alleged that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. This OP while admitting the fact that, she is a S.B. Account holder and consumer/customer vide SB Account No.20129617677 (old No.1262) since 2002 of this OP branch; issuance of cheque book and pass book to her, interalia pleaded that, as per the instructions of the complainant to stop payment of seven cheques, an amount of Rs.350/- was adjusted from her total balance amount of Rs.525/- on 11-6-2007.

After the deduction, she had a sum of Rs.135/- as the balance amount in her account. When the bank received a cheque on 8-8-2007, the complainant was informed either to close the account or to maintain the minimum balance. Thereafter, the complainant took a late decision and paid a sum of Rs. 500/- to her account and maintained the balance of Rs.570/- Thereafter, she obtained a cheque book on 3-10-2007 after paying charges of Rs.15/- through her account. Thus, it is alleged that, the complainant with some ulterior motives has made reckless allegations against the bank on distorted versions.

10. It is contended that, the alleged cheque presented by the 2nd OP was dishonoured by issuing a shara “Insufficiency of fund” on 31-1-2008 as the balance of Rs.425/- only was maintained by the complainant in her account. Thus, it is contended that, there is neither insufficiency of service nor negligence on the part of this OP. This OP has pleaded lack of knowledge in so far as the remaining allegations about filing of a criminal complaint by the 2nd OP before 16th ACMM, Bangalore and other related facts. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the complaint with exemplary cost.

11. In support of their cases, the complainant and the 1st OP have filed their affidavits. They have also pressed in to service of relevant documents and produced the several citations. The documents produced by the complainant and the 1st OP came to be marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-2 respectively. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on record.

12. The questions that arise for our considerations are:

1. Is there any deficiency of service committed by the 1st OP?

2. Is the complainant entitled for the relief as prayed for?

13. Our findings on the above questions are here under:

Point No.1: No

Point No.2: As per order

REASONS

14. A careful perusal of the account extract of the complainant produced by the 1st OP at Ex-R-1 it clearly reveals that, she had not maintained the minimum balance as on 11-6-2007. The correctness of this account extract is not disputed by the complainant. It is necessary note that, there is a statutory presumption available to the 1st OP in respect of the account extracts maintained by them during the ordinary course of their banking business. That being position, it is necessary to examine as to whether the 1st OP was justified in dishonouring the cheque for insufficiency of funds instead of returning it with an endorsement “stop payment”. As indicated earlier, the stop payment charges came to be deducted from the account of the complainant on 11-6-2007 at Rs.350/-. From the account extract, it is seen that, as on that date a sum of Rs.525/- was available in her account and from that balance Rs.350/- came to be deducted.

Therefore, it is evident that as on the date of complainant’s representation for stop payment of the cheques on the ground of loosing the cheque book and pass book or its misplacement, she had not maintained a minimum balance in her account. Therefore, in our view that, when 2nd OP had presented a cheque bearing No.442270 for Rs.2,50,000/-, the 1st OP was justified in dishonouring the cheque for insufficiency of funds.

15. It is the grievance of the complainant that, if the endorsement of “stop payment” was given instead of “insufficiency of funds” she would not have been made to face a criminal trial. This contention of holds no water in the light of the provision Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which gives cause of action to file a complaint even in case, where the cheque is returned with a endorsement “payment stopped” instead of “no sufficient funds” There is catena of decisions to hold that the dishonour of cheque by a reason of stop payment also attracts the provision of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, we find no merits in her contention.

16. Thus with the available materials on records, we are convinced to hold that, the complaint is devoid of merits and it is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed but without costs.

**adv.sumit** · 10-21-2009, 01:41 PM

Smt.Vijayakumari D/o. Jogappa Nayaka,

Aged about 43 years,

R/at Sri Ranga Nilaya, Complainant

Vivekananda Road,

Opp. SSIT, Saraswathipuram, Tumkur

AND

1. The Manager,

Bank of Maharastra,

B.G.Palya Circle, opposite parties

B.H.Road, Tumkur

2. Smt.Padmaja D/o. Janardhan,

Aged about 40 years,

No.93, 10th Cross, 3rd Block,

Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore

ORDER

2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an order against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as the OPs for short) to award a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and other expenses.

3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:

It is contended that, she holds a SB account bearing No.20129617677 (old No.1262) since 2002 and she has been given cheque book issued by the 1st OP. She claims that, since then, she has been making good transaction with the 1st OP.

4. It is further contended that, the complainant due to loss of her SB account pass book and cheque book made a representation before the 1st OP on 11-6-2007 and sought for issuance of duplicate pass book and also to stop payments of the cheque leafs vide No.442263, 442264, 442265, 442266, 442268, 442269 and 224470. The 1st OP had pursued the complainant to give a written request and collected Rs.200/- and Rs.150/- as a service charge for making the “stop payment” of the above said cheque leafs and Rs.50/- for issuing a duplicate pass book on the same day. After that, the complainant had received a duplicate pass book alongwith new cheque book.

5. It is further contended that, she was shocked and surprised when received summons from the court on a criminal complaint filed u/s 138 of NI Act by the 2nd OP. It is alleged that, the 2nd OP by misusing the lost cheque leaf bearing No.442270 presented the cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- by forging the signature of the complainant. She was further shocked to know that the 1st OP had entertained the cheque and returned with a shara “Insufficient funds” on 31-1-2008 eventhough he had received the representation of the complainant to stop payment and collected charges of Rs.350/- for taking needful action.

6. It is further contended that, the complainant in her representation given to the 1st OP had clearly mentioned that, the said cheque book and pass book were lost. The 1st OP when received the cheque leaf No.442270 for encashment had neither informed the complainant nor the police or taken steps to stop the payment of the cheque or given an endorsement to the concerned “stop payment”. Instead of issuing an endorsement of stop payment, the 1st OP dishonoured the cheque with an endorsement “Insufficient of Fund”. Due to the negligent service of the 1st OP and the illegal act of 2nd OP, she has been made to suffer in the eye of public and also forced to face a criminal trial before the 16th Additional CMM at Bangalore in CC.No.10153/2008.

7. Therefore, she claims compensation of Rs.3,00,000 from the 1st OP. Hence this complaint.

8. Among the OPs who have been notified of the complaint, the 1st OP put in his appearance through his counsel and resisted the same by filing his objections. The 2nd OP has failed to appear before this forum, hence, she is placed exparte.

9. The gist of the written statement is as follows:

In the written statement filed by the 1st OP, it is alleged that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. This OP while admitting the fact that, she is a S.B. Account holder and consumer/customer vide SB Account No.20129617677 (old No.1262) since 2002 of this OP branch; issuance of cheque book and pass book to her, interalia pleaded that, as per the instructions of the complainant to stop payment of seven cheques, an amount of Rs.350/- was adjusted from her total balance amount of Rs.525/- on 11-6-2007.

After the deduction, she had a sum of Rs.135/- as the balance amount in her account. When the bank received a cheque on 8-8-2007, the complainant was informed either to close the account or to maintain the minimum balance. Thereafter, the complainant took a late decision and paid a sum of Rs. 500/- to her account and maintained the balance of Rs.570/- Thereafter, she obtained a cheque book on 3-10-2007 after paying charges of Rs.15/- through her account. Thus, it is alleged that, the complainant with some ulterior motives has made reckless allegations against the bank on distorted versions.

10. It is contended that, the alleged cheque presented by the 2nd OP was dishonoured by issuing a shara “Insufficiency of fund” on 31-1-2008 as the balance of Rs.425/- only was maintained by the complainant in her account. Thus, it is contended that, there is neither insufficiency of service nor negligence on the part of this OP. This OP has pleaded lack of knowledge in so far as the remaining allegations about filing of a criminal complaint by the 2nd OP before 16th ACMM, Bangalore and other related facts. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the complaint with exemplary cost.

11. In support of their cases, the complainant and the 1st OP have filed their affidavits. They have also pressed in to service of relevant documents and produced the several citations. The documents produced by the complainant and the 1st OP came to be marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-2 respectively. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on record.

12. The questions that arise for our considerations are:

1. Is there any deficiency of service committed by the 1st OP?

2. Is the complainant entitled for the relief as prayed for?

13. Our findings on the above questions are here under:

Point No.1: No

Point No.2: As per order

REASONS

14. A careful perusal of the account extract of the complainant produced by the 1st OP at Ex-R-1 it clearly reveals that, she had not maintained the minimum balance as on 11-6-2007. The correctness of this account extract is not disputed by the complainant. It is necessary note that, there is a statutory presumption available to the 1st OP in respect of the account extracts maintained by them during the ordinary course of their banking business. That being position, it is necessary to examine as to whether the 1st OP was justified in dishonouring the cheque for insufficiency of funds instead of returning it with an endorsement “stop payment”. As indicated earlier, the stop payment charges came to be deducted from the account of the complainant on 11-6-2007 at Rs.350/-.

From the account extract, it is seen that, as on that date a sum of Rs.525/- was available in her account and from that balance Rs.350/- came to be deducted. Therefore, it is evident that as on the date of complainant’s representation for stop payment of the cheques on the ground of loosing the cheque book and pass book or its misplacement, she had not maintained a minimum balance in her account. Therefore, in our view that, when 2nd OP had presented a cheque bearing No.442270 for Rs.2,50,000/-, the 1st OP was justified in dishonouring the cheque for insufficiency of funds.

15. It is the grievance of the complainant that, if the endorsement of “stop payment” was given instead of “insufficiency of funds” she would not have been made to face a criminal trial. This contention of holds no water in the light of the provision Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which gives cause of action to file a complaint even in case, where the cheque is returned with a endorsement “payment stopped” instead of “no sufficient funds” There is catena of decisions to hold that the dishonour of cheque by a reason of stop payment also attracts the provision of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, we find no merits in her contention.

**adv.sumit** · 10-22-2009, 04:00 PM

Smt.Vijayakumari D/o. Jogappa Nayaka,

Aged about 43 years,

R/at Sri Ranga Nilaya, Complainant

Vivekananda Road,

Opp. SSIT, Saraswathipuram, Tumkur

AND

1. The Manager,

Bank of Maharastra,

B.G.Palya Circle, opposite parties

B.H.Road, Tumkur

2. Smt.Padmaja D/o. Janardhan,

Aged about 40 years,

No.93, 10th Cross, 3rd Block,

Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore

ORDER

2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an order against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as the OPs for short) to award a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and other expenses.

3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:

It is contended that, she holds a SB account bearing No.20129617677 (old No.1262) since 2002 and she has been given cheque book issued by the 1st OP. She claims that, since then, she has been making good transaction with the 1st OP.

4. It is further contended that, the complainant due to loss of her SB account pass book and cheque book made a representation before the 1st OP on 11-6-2007 and sought for issuance of duplicate pass book and also to stop payments of the cheque leafs vide No.442263, 442264, 442265, 442266, 442268, 442269 and 224470. The 1st OP had pursued the complainant to give a written request and collected Rs.200/- and Rs.150/- as a service charge for making the “stop payment” of the above said cheque leafs and Rs.50/- for issuing a duplicate pass book on the same day. After that, the complainant had received a duplicate pass book alongwith new cheque book.

5. It is further contended that, she was shocked and surprised when received summons from the court on a criminal complaint filed u/s 138 of NI Act by the 2nd OP. It is alleged that, the 2nd OP by misusing the lost cheque leaf bearing No.442270 presented the cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- by forging the signature of the complainant. She was further shocked to know that the 1st OP had entertained the cheque and returned with a shara “Insufficient funds” on 31-1-2008 eventhough he had received the representation of the complainant to stop payment and collected charges of Rs.350/- for taking needful action.

6. It is further contended that, the complainant in her representation given to the 1st OP had clearly mentioned that, the said cheque book and pass book were lost. The 1st OP when received the cheque leaf No.442270 for encashment had neither informed the complainant nor the police or taken steps to stop the payment of the cheque or given an endorsement to the concerned “stop payment”. Instead of issuing an endorsement of stop payment, the 1st OP dishonoured the cheque with an endorsement “Insufficient of Fund”. Due to the negligent service of the 1st OP and the illegal act of 2nd OP, she has been made to suffer in the eye of public and also forced to face a criminal trial before the 16th Additional CMM at Bangalore in CC.No.10153/2008.

7. Therefore, she claims compensation of Rs.3,00,000 from the 1st OP. Hence this complaint.

8. Among the OPs who have been notified of the complaint, the 1st OP put in his appearance through his counsel and resisted the same by filing his objections. The 2nd OP has failed to appear before this forum, hence, she is placed exparte.

9. The gist of the written statement is as follows:

In the written statement filed by the 1st OP, it is alleged that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. This OP while admitting the fact that, she is a S.B. Account holder and consumer/customer vide SB Account No.20129617677 (old No.1262) since 2002 of this OP branch; issuance of cheque book and pass book to her, interalia pleaded that, as per the instructions of the complainant to stop payment of seven cheques, an amount of Rs.350/- was adjusted from her total balance amount of Rs.525/- on 11-6-2007.

After the deduction, she had a sum of Rs.135/- as the balance amount in her account. When the bank received a cheque on 8-8-2007, the complainant was informed either to close the account or to maintain the minimum balance. Thereafter, the complainant took a late decision and paid a sum of Rs. 500/- to her account and maintained the balance of Rs.570/- Thereafter, she obtained a cheque book on 3-10-2007 after paying charges of Rs.15/- through her account. Thus, it is alleged that, the complainant with some ulterior motives has made reckless allegations against the bank on distorted versions.

10. It is contended that, the alleged cheque presented by the 2nd OP was dishonoured by issuing a shara “Insufficiency of fund” on 31-1-2008 as the balance of Rs.425/- only was maintained by the complainant in her account. Thus, it is contended that, there is neither insufficiency of service nor negligence on the part of this OP. This OP has pleaded lack of knowledge in so far as the remaining allegations about filing of a criminal complaint by the 2nd OP before 16th ACMM, Bangalore and other related facts. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the complaint with exemplary cost.

11. In support of their cases, the complainant and the 1st OP have filed their affidavits. They have also pressed in to service of relevant documents and produced the several citations. The documents produced by the complainant and the 1st OP came to be marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-2 respectively. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on record.

12. The questions that arise for our considerations are:

1. Is there any deficiency of service committed by the 1st OP?

2. Is the complainant entitled for the relief as prayed for?

13. Our findings on the above questions are here under:

Point No.1: No

Point No.2: As per order

REASONS

14. A careful perusal of the account extract of the complainant produced by the 1st OP at Ex-R-1 it clearly reveals that, she had not maintained the minimum balance as on 11-6-2007. The correctness of this account extract is not disputed by the complainant. It is necessary note that, there is a statutory presumption available to the 1st OP in respect of the account extracts maintained by them during the ordinary course of their banking business. That being position, it is necessary to examine as to whether the 1st OP was justified in dishonouring the cheque for insufficiency of funds instead of returning it with an endorsement “stop payment”. As indicated earlier, the stop payment charges came to be deducted from the account of the complainant on 11-6-2007 at Rs.350/-.

From the account extract, it is seen that, as on that date a sum of Rs.525/- was available in her account and from that balance Rs.350/- came to be deducted. Therefore, it is evident that as on the date of complainant’s representation for stop payment of the cheques on the ground of loosing the cheque book and pass book or its misplacement, she had not maintained a minimum balance in her account. Therefore, in our view that, when 2nd OP had presented a cheque bearing No.442270 for Rs.2,50,000/-, the 1st OP was justified in dishonouring the cheque for insufficiency of funds.

15. It is the grievance of the complainant that, if the endorsement of “stop payment” was given instead of “insufficiency of funds” she would not have been made to face a criminal trial. This contention of holds no water in the light of the provision Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which gives cause of action to file a complaint even in case, where the cheque is returned with a endorsement “payment stopped” instead of “no sufficient funds” There is catena of decisions to hold that the dishonour of cheque by a reason of stop payment also attracts the provision of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, we find no merits in her contention.

16. Thus with the available materials on records, we are convinced to hold that, the complaint is devoid of merits and it is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is ordered.

Farheen akram · 10-25-2011, 12:55 PM

Bank deduct (Debit) half maintanance Amount of my Scholership As Fine of Minimum Balance from my student account without any notice .
Maintanance Amount is a help to the student from Govt. But Half Amount is Debited by bank .It is Fpr Student Not fof bank Please Tell The student .....Is it fare or Not if no problem that is loop whol But no maintanance amount is a Help0 to Student Not the bank

Bank of maharashtra

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Bank of maharashtra

Bank of Maharastra

Bank of Maharastra

Bank of Maharastra

Bank deduct (Debit) half maintanance Amount of my Scholership As Fine of Minimum Bal

Similar Threads

CIDCO of Maharashtra Ltd

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

Maharashtra Bank Customer care not answering the phone

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions