Appeal No.1014/08

Bank of Baroda & anr. V. Smt.Urmila Mishra


Before:

Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member



Shri Rajendra Salecha,counsel for the appellants

Shri R.K.Mishra in capacity as representative of his wife complainant respondent





Date of Judgement: 3.7.09




BY THE STATE COMMISSION


This appeal has been filed by the appellants bank which were ops before the District Forum-I,Jaipur against the order dated 30.4.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint no.1268/06, by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs.1500/- as amount of cost of litigation to the complainant respondent within one month failing which the complainant respondent would be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a on the above amount.


It arises in the following circumstances:


2


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants bank before the District Forum-I,Jaipur on 23.11.06 interalia stating that she is Proprietor of S.S.Cosmetics and she had issued a cheque no.438981 dated 16.11.06 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in favour of Shubh Shikha Enterprises. It was further stated in the complaint that in the appellants' bank she was having a saving bank account no.32036 and it was further stated in the complaint that when the cheque in question had come in the appellants' bank, instead of clearing that cheque,on 17.11.06 had returned the cheque for reasons insufficient funds though as per the case of the complainant respondent she was having the amount in saving bank account and this cheque was wrongly returned and for the deficiency the complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellants bank before the District Forum-I,Jaipur on 24.7.07 and in the reply it was admitted that the cheque in question was presented on behalf of Subh Shikha Enterprises in the branch of the appellants bank in Park Street,Jaipur and that cheque was sent for clearance on 17.11.06 in the appellants' bank and since when the cheque had sent for clearance, the complainant respondent was having a sum of Rs.103.50 in her account and thus the cheque was rightly returned on ground of insufficient funds. Further a sum of Rs.10,000/- were deposited by the complainant respondent on 17.11.06 but that was deposited in late hours and before that the cheque in question was returned on ground of insufficient funds.Hence no case complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 30.4.08 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that when the complainant respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 17.11.06 and that amount was credited in the account of the complainant respondent by the

3


bank,therefore,on the same day returning the cheque on the ground of insufficient funds was not justified.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants bank.


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants bank is that no doubt,the complainant respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 17.11.06, but when the cheque in question came for clearance,she was not having sufficient funds in her account,therefore,the cheque was returned for insufficient funds,thus there was no negligency on the part of the appellants bank and the findings recorded by the District Forum be quashed and set aside.


On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant respondent has supported the impugned order.


In this case,the factual position is concerned,there is no dispute on the point that when the cheque in question came for clearance on 17.11.06,the appellants bank had returned that cheque on ground of insufficient funds. But there is no dispute on the point that on the same day i.e on 17.11.06 the complainant respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- and on the same day this amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited in the account of the complainant respondent.


In our considered opinion,in such a situation,returning the cheque could not be justified specially when on the same day and prior noon the amount in question had been credited in the account of the complainant respondent and thus the appellants bank should have not been returned the cheque in the manner as done by the appellants bank and it was the duty of the bank that as soon as the

4


amount which was received by the appellant must have been instantly credited in the account of the complainant respondent and if that would have been done,the situation that had arisen would have not arisen.


For reasons as stated above,we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the District Forum as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.


The result is that this appeal filed by the appellants bank is dismissed.




Member President