RAGHUVEERAN K. vs E.KRISHNA MURTHY

THE complainant opened a joint account in his name along with his wife and mother somewhere in the year 1996. Subsequently, somewhere in the year 1998 on the request of the complainant his son Mr. Ratnakar Mallya K. was also added as one of the account holder along with the above said three joint account holders.

ONE Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. issued a cheque in the name of Mr. Ratnakar Mallya on 23.11.2003 for Rs. 7,10,059 and the same was credited to the joint Savings Bank Account No. 996. The complainant has produced the receipt for having credited the said cheque which is marked as Ex. C-2. The said cheque, according to the complainant was sent for collection and after collecting the same, the Bank instead of crediting the same to the joint SB account has kept the said amount in a suspense account. Thereafter, the complainant issued a cheque dated 27.11.2003 for Rs. 7,25,000 in favour of M/s. Naga Constructions. The said cheque on presentation by Naga Constructions through its Banker was dishonored by the O.P. Bank. This according to the complainant is a deficiency in service and it is also an injury to his reputation. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 from the O.Ps. The O.P. has filed the version. In the version the O.P. has denied that the S.B. account of the complainant is in the joint names of four persons including the name of Sri Ratnakar Mallya. Though the O.P. has filed the version which runs about seven pages, there is nothing worth considering so as to consider whether there is any deficiency in service on their part or not.

The complainant has filed the affidavit by way of evidence and also produced the documents which are marked as Exs. C1 to C9. The complainant has also delivered the interrogatories to the O.Ps. The O.Ps. have not filed any replies to the interrogatories filed by the complainant. The opposite party has produced two letters dated 29.11.2003 and 28.3.2004 apart from filing the affidavit by way of evidence in proof of the averments made in the version.

ON the pleadings of the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: (1) Whether the complainant has established that the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured by the O.P. even though sufficient fund is available in the joint account and the same amounts to deficiency in service? (2) To what relief the complainant is entitled for? The complainant has produced Ex. C1 the pass book issued by the O.Ps. to show the joint account is in the name of four persons that is the complainant, his wife, his mother and his son Ratnakar Mallya. The fact that the joint account stands in the name of four persons is not disputed by the O.Ps.

ACCORDING to the O.Ps., Ratnakar Mallya was admitted as a joint account holder only from 29.11.2003. In support of this contention they have produced the copy of the letter dated 29.11.2003. The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that this letter was obtained from the complainant only when the complainant brought to the notice of the O.P. that the cheque issued by him has been dishonoured even though sufficient funds were available in the joint account. The joint account bears SB Account No. 996. The pass book contains the entries right from the year 1999. If that were to be the case, the letter dated 29.11.2003 relied upon by the O.P. to show that Ratnakar Mallya was admitted as a member with effect from 29.11.2003 cannot be accepted. The complainant has produced the receipt dated 23.11.2003 which is marked as Ex. C-2 which disclosed that Ratnakar Mallya has presented a cheque for Rs. 7,10,059 with a request to collect the same and credit the same to the SB Account No. 996. From the proceedings it is seen that the amount mentioned in the said cheque was collected from the IDBI bank but the same was kept in a suspense account instead of crediting the same to the joint account by the O.P. Bank. Thereafter, the complainant issued a cheque to one Naga Constructions for Rs. 7,25,000. The said cheque was presented by the Banker of the Naga Construction and Company for collection to the O.P. Bank. But the said cheque was dishonoured by the O.P. on the ground that sufficient fund is not available in the account. Immediately, the complainant issued a legal notice to the O.P. Bank which is marked as Ex. C-4 claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 stating that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. in not honouring the cheque even though sufficient fund is available in the joint account.

THE opposite party has sent a reply notice to the legal notice issued by the complainant. THE said reply notice is marked as Ex. C-6. In Ex. C-6 it is stated that the O.P. Bank was informed by Ratnakar Mallya to keep the proceeds of the cheque and not to credit to the SB account till he informs the Bank in writing. In support of this statement no evidence has been produced by the O.P. whereas, in the version the case of the O.P. is the denial of the joint account in the name of four persons which includes Ratnakar Mallya. From this, it is seen that the Bank is not consistent in its stand.

AS per the banking practice whenever a cheque is credited to the account mentioning the account number then whatever the proceeds realized should be credited to the account. It is not the case of the O.P. that Ratnakar Mallya has not credited the cheque for Rs. 7,10,059 to the SB Account No. 996 which is the joint account of the complainant and others. When such being the case, there is no reason for the O.P. Bank to keep the said amount in suspense without crediting the same to the joint account. If the amount is credited to the joint account there was no reason for the O.P. Bank to dishonour the cheque presented by the drawee through its Banker.

In order to show that the stand taken by the O.P. that Ratnakar Mallya was not included in the joint account prior to 29.11.2003, it is just and necessary to consider the extract issued by ICICI Bank which is marked as Ex. C-7. Ex. C-7 is dated 5.3.2002 wherein the joint account of Ratnakar Mallya is shown as Account No. 996. Further, the cheque dated 1st March, 2003 issued by ICICI Infotech in favour of Ratnakar Mallya was also credited to the joint account as seen from the pass book Ex. C-1.

EX. C-9 is another pass book which also relates to the joint account which also contained the names of four persons as the joint account holders in the O.P. Bank. From all these materials, it is seen that the O.P. Bank committed deficiency in service in not honouring the cheque issued by the complainant even though sufficient amount was available in the joint account of the complainant and others. On the basis of this dishonour of the cheque, it is open for the holder of the cheque issued by the complainant to prosecute the complainant in the Criminal Court. It is not the case of the complainant that he was prosecuted in the Criminal Court. But the mere fact of dishonour of the cheque itself in our view is an injury to the reputation of the complainant.

IF the O.P. Bank had taken due care in the normal course, the cheque issued by the complainant would not have been dishonoured and in that event there would be no injury to the complainant''s reputation. Under the circumstances, we hold that the complainant is entitled for damages from the O.P. since there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. After hearing both the parties and after going through the materials, we are of the view that awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000 as damages in favour of the complainant for his mental agony, hardship and as punitive damages would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as damages in favour of the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization. O.Ps. are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000 towards the costs of the proceedings. Complaint partly allowed.