UNITED COMMERCIAL. BANK vs DIPAK TEXTILE

THE question that arises in this appeal is with regard to the dishonouring of the cheque of the complainant by the Bank even though there was a balance in his account. It is not disputed that the complainant had balance of Rs. 1,407.13 in the account and the cheque issued by the complainant for the payment of his telephone bill was for Rs, 813/- i.e. less than the balance in the account.

THE contention raised by the Bank was that they were entitled to debit the amount of Rs. 781/- for the period from 1-8-1988 to 10-1-1991 of interest charges because according to R.B.I, directions they were entitled to charge this interest when cheques were credited in the account of the Complainant prior to their clearance. According to the complainant the Bank had granted him the facility to clear the cheques without such charges because they were keeping F.D.R. It appears that the Bank has not deducted any charges at time when these cheques were actually credited but appears to Havid decided to charge the complainant in the year 19,91 at the time when the telephone bill was presented before the Bank. No previous notice was given to the complainant that they have decided to charge for the facilities provided to the complainant of giving credit of the cheques before the same were cleared in the clearing house and that is why the Bank has dishonoured the cheque since balance had fallen and was not sufficient to clear the telephone bill cheque. The District Forum has come to the conclusion that the Bank cannot deduct the amount before informing the complaint by notice. The District Forum has, therefore, believed that the Bank has wrongly refused the payment of the telephone cheque even though there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant.

The complainant has demanded Rs. 5,000/- for damages including pain and suffering against the Bank for dishonoring of the cheque. The District Forum came to the conclusion that by dishonoring of the cheque the complainant has not suffered any other injury since the complainant himself has made the payment by cash and telephone was not disconnected. However, the District Forum has accepted that on account of the dishonoring of the cheque the complainant must have suffered pain and suffering especially when the amount involved was very small and when the complainant was enjoying the facility granted by the Bank. The Bank has, therefore, acted unreasonably. We also find that the action taken by the Bank to dishonor the cheque without informing the complainant either to deposit the difference amount or that his account has been debited because of the R.B.I, circular is not a reasonable step which might have caused some pain and suffering to the Complainant. Once we come to the conclusion that the complainant has suffered pain and suffering, whether the damages should be Rs. 500/- or Rs. 200/- is a discretionary question and when the District Forum has estimated the damages at Rs. 500/-, it is not unreasonable or exorbitant inviting our intervention. We therefore find no error committed by the District Forum and dismiss this appeal.

IT appears that the Bank has not paid any amount to the complainant nor has obtained any stay from this Commission. Considering these facts and circumstances, we pass the following order : ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed. The appellant will pay cost to the respondent which we quantify at Rs. 250/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.