Shubh Laxmi Medicos vs DENA BANK

THE complainant was sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.50,000/ - by the respondent and there was a debit balance of Rs.5,168.59/ - in his account as on 31 -12 -1999. Since there was no transaction in the aforesaid account for a considerable period it was taken as NPA. The request of the complainant for continuing the account was not acceded to. The complainant issued a cheque of Rs.10,000/ - on 30 -08 -2001 and a cheque of Rs.16,000/ - on 31 -08 -2001. Both the cheques were dishonoured on the ground that there was no credit balance in his account. Alleging that in fact there was a credit balance of Rs.26,062.41/ - in his account and, therefore, the cheques ought not to have been dishonoured, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint against the bank.

THE complaint was resisted by the bank on the ground that since there was no credit balance in the account of the complainant the cheques had been rightly dishonoured.

VIDE order dated 07 -12 -2006 the District Forum directed the bank to pay an amount of Rs.26,062.41/ - to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, compensation quantified at Rs.2,000/ - and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.1,000/ -. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 15 -12 -2010 the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the bank. Being aggrieved the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties we directed the bank to supply complete statement of account starting from 01 -10 -1995 till date, to the complainant. We also directed the complainant to point out the missing entries, if any, along with proof of having deposited the said amount. The respondent bank prepared an upto date statement of account and supplied the same to the complainant. During the course of hearing before us, the complainant raised objection with respect to the debit entry of Rs.8,000/ - dated 25 -04 -1995 made in his account. The learned counsel for the bank thereupon drew our attention to the credit entry of Rs.8,000/ - made on 31 -03 -1995 and submitted that in fact the aforesaid amount was not deposited by the complainant but was deposited by RM Egg Centre and when the mistake was noticed the aforesaid amount was debited in the account of the complainant on 25 -04 -1995. The entry of Rs.25,495/ - contains a reference to the entry dated 30 -03 -1995 and a voucher showing deposit of the aforesaid amount by RM Egg Centre has also been filed by the bank. The complainant on the other hand could not show any deposit slip evidencing deposit of Rs.8,000/ - in cash by him on 31 -03 -1995. It is, therefore, obvious that the bank made a wrong credit entry of Rs.8,000/ - in the account of the complainant on 31 -03 -1995 which it corrected by making a debit entry of that amount on 25 -04 -1995. No other entry in the statement of account has been disputed in the written statement of the petitioner dated 08 -11 -2014.

A perusal of the statement of account would show that there was no credit balance in the account of the complainant on the dates cheques of Rs.10,000/ - and Rs.16,000/ - were presented to the bank. Rather there was a debit balance of Rs.5,990.59/ - in his account as on 31 -08 -2001. Therefore, the bank had no option but to dishonor the cheques issued by him. It was contended by the complainant that since he had a cash credit limit of Rs.50,000/ -, the cheques should not have been dishonoured by the bank. The learned counsel for the bank, however, pointed out that the cash credit limit had already been discontinued by the bank much earlier than the aforesaid two cheques were issued by the complainant. The bank, therefore, could not have honoured those cheques on the strength of the aforesaid cash credit facility.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.