DAYA SHANKAR vs Branch Manager, State Bank of India

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 15.7.1993 passed by District Forum, Pratapgarh in Complaint No. 13 of 1992. The facts of the case stated in brief, are that the complainant had cash credit limit of Rs. 35.000/- with the opposite party No. 1, State Bank of India, Branch Ramganj, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh. THIS limit was increased to Rs. 50,000/- on the request of the complainant. It is alleged that after one month of increase in the cash credit limit the Bank Authorities without any information or notice reduced the cash credit limit. Thereafter on 8.9.1990 a cheque for Rs. 15.000/- was refused to be honoured by opposite parties. Thereafter on 15.10.1990 another cheque of Rs. 20,000/- was also not honoured. Both these cheques were to be honoured by the opposite party No. 1. Complainant also alleged that the opposite party No. 1 could not satisfy the complainant as to why this cash credit limit was reduced even when the querry was made from the Bank. The complainant has suffered loss to his reputation on account of reducing the cash credit limit due to which two cheques were dishonoured. He lost a sum of Rs. 8,000/- in running about. He also suffered his reputation for which he has claimed Rs. 10,000/- as damages.

FROM the oppositee side it was alleged that the cash credit limit was reduced, which has not caused any loss to the opposite party. It has also been alleged that if the cash credit limit is reduced then no deficiency in service can be said to have occurred and no damage is to be paid. Learned District Forum on consideration of the entire evidence on record, has held that if the Bank has reduced the cash credit limit then there is no deficiency in service even if the cheque has been dishonoured. Learned Counsel for the appellant was present. No one was present from the opposite side. According to the learned Counsel for the appell ant if the cash credit limit has to be reduced by the Bank then a notice should have been given to the complainant so that he may be aware of the cash credit limit available to him. He has placed reliance on the case of Mikes Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, II (1995) CPJ 97 (NC)=1996 CCJ 392 (NC). In that case also the Bank had increased cash credit limit but later on reduced the same with out any notice to the person whose cash credit limit was reduced. On these facts National Commission held that the Bank could not have freezed the cash credit limit without giving any notice. The National Commission held that the action of the Bank in freezing the credit facilities was mala fide and the Bank was held to be guilty of negligence and deficient in providing service. Thus this case fully applies to the facts of the present case, because by reducing the Bank guarantee, without any notice the complainant, who issued two cheques suffered on account of dishonouring of those cheques. If the complainant had been told that his cash credit limit has been decreased then he would not have issued the cheques taking into consideration the reduced limit.

The complainant has claimed damages worth Rs. 1,14,000/-. For the year 1991 he has claimed damages of Rs. 55,000/- for which the theft was committed and nothing was recovered. He has claimed a sum of Rs.8,000/- for running about and Rs. 10000/- for damage to his image in the business. In this case the dispute is about cash credit limit. There is no question of giving damages of Rs. 55,000/- on account of theft which has no relevance with cash credit limit. We also do not find any reason to award any damage for loss of image in the business. For the year 1991-92 he has claimed Rs. 2,000/- as interest paid to the Bank. He has not given any details as to how he has paid interest and for what purposes this interest was paid. He has also claimed damage for loss to the business and for loss of image in the business. We are also not inclined to award any damage on this count.

THE claimant/appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,000/- only as damage for physical harassment for running about. He is not entitled for costs because the appeal is being allowed in part only. Thus the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant/appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as stated above which be shall be paid within two months. The costs shall be borne by the parties.

A copy of the order be given to the parties within 10 days as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.