LEELA DEVI vs CITI BANK

THE complainant has filed this complaint claiming damages of Rs. 20 lakh from the opposite party (for short, the "O.P.").

THOUGH the complaint runs about 15 pages, the only dispute according to the complainant as against the O.P. relates to dishonouring of the cheques with an endorsement "insufficient funds", even though the complainant had sufficient funds, as the O.P. has allowed the complainant to avail the facility of Temporary Overdraft (for short "TOD"). The complainant is the Proprietor of M/s. Micro Fashions India, which is a manufacturer of exclusive shirts and trousers, having its manufacturing unit in Bangalore City and wholesale and outlet at Shop No. 93, I Floor, Madhu Market A.M. Lane, Chickpet Cross, Bangalore - 560 053. The complainant has opened a current account bearing No. 052439-809 with the O.P. Bank. The O.P. is a Banking institution. Though the complainant has made several allegations against the O.P., the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant restricts his argument insofar as dishonouring the cheques by the O.P is concerned, stating or that even though the complainant was having sufficient funds in her account in view of the fact that the facility of TOD was provided by the O.P. to the complainant.

The case of the complainant is that she had credited a sum of Rs. 1,45,000 to her account by way of T.T. Transfer. But the O.P. has negligently credited Rs. 14,500 to her account. When this fact was brought to the notice of the O.P., the O.P. has admitted the mistake on its part in crediting a sum of Rs. 14,500 instead of Rs. 1,45,000 and has allowed the complainant to have T.O.D. facility up to Rs. 1,00,000 for a period of one year from 17.4.2001. One of the terms and conditions to avail the T.O.D. facility between the parties is that the overdrawn amount be repaid within a period of seven days on every occasion. According to the complainant, she had issued about 42 cheques but the said cheques were dishonoured with an Endorsement "Insufficient Funds". This dishonouring of the cheques, according to the complainant, had come in the way for her business and also resulted in injury to her reputation and, therefore, she is entitled for compensation of Rs. 20.00 lakh from the O.P.

THE O.P. has filed its version. In the version the O.P. has admitted that in view of the mistake committed in not properly crediting the amount to the complainant''s account, the O.P. has offered the TOD facility up to the limit of Rs. 1,00,000 subject to the condition that the complainant has to clear off the debit balance in her Account on every occasion. THE further case of the O.P. is that the T.O.D. limit though is up to Rs. 1,00,000, it cannot be treated as a loan as and when a cheque is presented the complainant is required to clear the overdue balance within 7 days on every occasion. In the instant case, according to the O.P., the complainant has issued the cheques without clearing the debit balance and, therefore, the return of the cheques with an Endorsement "Insufficient Funds" is in accordance with the agreed terms and, therefore, there is no deficiency on their part. It is further stated in the version that the complainant having not established that she has suffered any damage is not entitled for any damages. On these rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the complainant proves any deficiency on the part of the O.P., so as to claim damages as prayed for in the Complaint?

IT is not in dispute that the complainant is required to discharge the overdue balance within 7 days on every occasion, whenever she issues a cheque. The O.P. has filed its written arguments along with the details of the cheques issued by the complainant to show that whenever there was no debit balance in the account of the complainant, the cheques were honoured and whenever debit balance was not cleared or discharged as per the terms of the contract, the cheques were returned with an Endorsement "Insufficient Funds". When we called upon the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant to point out which of the cheques have been dishonoured even though sufficient funds were available in her account and debit balance has been cleared as per the agreed terms, he was not in a position to point out even a single instance where the O.P. Bank has committed wrong in returning the cheques. No doubt the complainant has produced the Statement of Account which is marked as Exhibit ''G'' along with the Complaint. From this Statement of Account also the complainant is not able to point out that she has cleared the debit balance and in spite of that cheque has been returned by the O.P. In the absence of any such evidence produced by the complainant, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency on the part of the O.P. so as to claim damages. The complainant also has not produced any evidence to show what is the substantial damage or loss she has suffered consequent on the return of the cheques by the O.P. If at all the complainant were to establish deficiency, then only she is entitled for damages under the Consumer Protection Act. In the instant case, we have held that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency alleged as against the O.P. and, therefore, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

IN the result, we pass the following Order: (1) The Complaint is dismissed. (2) Parties to bear their costs. Complaint dismissed.