E.J. Bellie, President

1. This appeal is by the opposite parties against which an order of award has been passed by the District Forum. The complainant Company was having a Current Account in the 2nd opposite party's Bank. The complainant issued a cheque to M/s. Southern Sea Foods Ltd. on 17.3.1995 for Rs. 5,333.65 for supply of goods made to them by that Company. When the said cheque was presented by the said Company M/s. Southern Sea Foods Ltd. for encashment it was returned unpaid with an endorsement "Funds insufficient". According to the complainant, M/s. Southern Sea Foods Ltd., immediately on receipt of intimation of the dishonour, stopped the supply of goods ordered by the complainant on credit facility. Though there was sufficient funds, the 2nd opposite party had dishonoured the cheque and this amounts to deficiency in service. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.

2. The opposite parties contended that as on 15.3.1995, there was a credit balance of Rs. 5,454/- in the account of the complainant Company. On 16.3.1995 the complainant deposited Rs. 3,500/- by way of a pay-in-slip. Due to over-writing the figures, the figure "3500" appeared to be "350". Hence the 2nd opposite party had given credit of Rs. 350/- only. On 16.3.1995 the cheque issued by the complainant for Rs. 3,500/- had been passed leaving a balance credit of Rs. 3,106/-. On 17.3.1995, when two cheques of the complainant - one for Rs. 446.15 and the other for Rs. 5,335.65 came up for clearing, the cheque for Rs. 446.15 was passed and the cheque in question for Rs. 5,335.65 was returned with an endorsement "Funds insufficient" because the account showed a credit balance of Rs. 2,659.85 only. Then the complainant brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party about the deposit of Rs. 3,500/- on 21.3.1995 and it was then rectified giving credit for the said sum on the original date. On being convinced on the over-writing in figures "350" in the pay-in slip, the complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to furnish a letter of requisition requesting the payee M/s. Southern Sea Foods Ltd. to represent the returned cheque for clearing. Hence, such a letter was given. The said Company represented the cheque and that was passed on 24.3.1995. Hence, an error was committed due to the overwriting of the figures which was later rectified. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed.

3. The District Forum, on consideration of pleadings and the evidence, accepted the case of the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, it passed an award directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs.

4. Now in the appeal, it is contended that it was only due to the fault committed by the complainant Company the mistake had occurred in the account and the cheque was returned with an endorsement "Funds insufficient" and therefore, it cannot be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Ex. B-l is a xerox copy of the relevant pay-in-slip. A look at it would show that any person would say that the amount mentioned therein in figures is only Rs. 350/- and not at all Rs. 3,500/-. Therefore, it is clearly a grave fault committed by the complainant Company itself in writing in figures in such a way that it could be read only as Rs. 350/- and not anything else. It does not give any room for any doubt by anybody regarding the correct amount The District Forum has mentioned about a comma after the figure "3", but in the course of one's work, nobody would take notice of it as a significant one. Therefore, when the opposite parties plead that due to the said reason the amount has been read as Rs. 350/- only and not Rs. 3,500/- it has to be accepted. True, the amount has been written in the said pay-in-slip in words as "Three thousand five hundred only", but since there was absolutely nothing to raise any suspicion in the figures, quite possibly, the person concerned did not think it necessary to read the amount mentioned in words. At the end of the day, the Bank at the relevant time, might have found excess cash, but it cannot be said that it could be only Rs. 3,500/- and not anything more or anything less than that. Since there will be numerous transactions involving cheques, pay-in-slip, etc., it may not be possible for the Bank to find out in respect of which transaction the excess cash was found. There is no gainsaying that but for the fault committed by the complainant there would not have been a wrong entry in the account.

5. Then, the cheque was returned on 17.3.1995. On 21.3.1995 the complainant brought to me notice of the opposite party about the deposit of Rs. 3,500/- and immediately then the correct credit has been given from the original date of deposit. Further, on a request made by the complainant, the opposite party had sent a requisition to the payee Company of the cheque to re-present the returned cheque for clearing, and accordingly the payee Company represented the said cheque and it was passed on 24.3.1995. In these circumstances, filing a complaint against the opposite parties in the Consumer Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as compensation would amount to the complainant taking advantage of the consequences occurred due to its own fault. Therefore, the order of the District Forum holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties cannot be accepted as correct.

6. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

DISSENTING ORDER

Pulavar V.S. Kandasamy, Member-I disagree with the majority order in this appeal. The facts of this case are given in the majority order. The case is simple.

8. The respondent who is the complainant before the District Forum, is a Firm and it is engaged in business. It has been maintaining a Current Account with the 2nd opposite party Bank. It had issued a cheque for Rs. 5,335.65 P. in favour of M/s. Southern Sea Foods Ltd. for the supply of materials. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the opposite party Bank did not honour the said cheque and returned it to the drawee on the ground that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the respondent/ complainant. After the cheque was dishonoured by the opposite party, M/s. Southern Sea Foods Ltd., in whose favour the cheque was issued, stopped the supply of material to the complainant, who was shocked and surprised.

9. The respondent/complainant had some amount in its Current Account as closing balance. With a view to ensure that there is sufficient funds in its account, before issuing a cheque for Rs. 5,335.65P. in favour of M/s. Southern Sea Foods Ltd., the respondent/complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500/- in cash into the opposite party Bank for crediting the said amount into its account for the purpose of enhancing its dosing balance. Instead of crediting a sum of Rs. 3,500/-, the opposite party credited to the account of the complainant a sum of Rs. 350/- only by mistake. As a result of this incorrect act, the opposite party held the view that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the respondent/ complainant resulting in the dishonouring of the cheque issued by the complainant in favour of M/s. Southern Sea Foods Ltd. When the mistake committed by the opposite party was pointed out by the complainant, the former rectified the mistake. Alleging that there was deficiency in service in dishonouring the cheque, as a result of which it had suffered loss in business and damage to the goodwill, the complainant filed a complaint claiming compensation for loss in business and goodwill.

10. The opposite party resisted the claim.

11. After a detailed enquiry, the District Forum has come to a categorical conclusion that this is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence it has granted a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant against which the appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal.

12. Now, in this appeal, after perusing the pleadings and evidence carefully and after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, I have no hesitation to hold that this is clear case of sheer negligence on the part of the opposite party and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. In the version filed before the District Forum, the opposite party, while conceding that a mistake was committed by it in not crediting to the account of the respondent/complainant the correct amount of Rs. 3,500/- deposited by the complainant, it had claimed that such a mistake was due to the overwriting of the figures on the pay-in-slip presented by the respondent/ complainant while remitting the cash. However, a perusal of the pay-in-slip filed by the complainant clearly shows that there is no overwriting of the figures. After the figure "3", there is a comma and thereafter figure "5" appears and thereafter two ciphers appear. All the figures indicating a sum of Rs. 3,500/- are distinct and dear. The only special feature, if one may say so, is that both the ciphers are connected by a straight line on the top. Apart from this, there is no evidence at all for overwriting of the figures on the pay-in-slip. According to the Chamber's Dictionary, over-write means "to cover with writing or other writing". There is no iota of evidence at all to show that there is overwriting of the figure 3,500/- on the pay-in-slip. Hence, the contention of the opposite party that the mistake committed by it in crediting a sum of Rs. 350/- only, instead of Rs. 3,500/- deposited by the complainant was due to overwriting of the figures on the pay-in-slip has no factual basis. Assuming for a moment, but not accepting that there was over-writing of the figures on the pay - in-slip which is alleged to have caused some doubt about the actual amount, then the question arises as to why the opposite party did not care to see the amount written in words on the same pay-in-slip to clear its doubt. The amount is written clearly in words as "Three thousand and five hundred only". If the contention of the opposite party that there was over-writing of the figures as a result of which some doubt was caused in the mind of the person concerned in the Bank, a duty is cast upon it to check-up immediately the amount written in words on the same pay-in-slip. But the opposite party had miserably failed to do so. If it is contended that the person concerned did not think it necessary to read the amount written in words even after holding that there was over-writing of the figures, that itself establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party cannot be allowed to say anything it liked to suit its convenience.

13. It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever cash is remitted into a Bank, alongwith the pay-in-slip for the purpose of crediting the amount into an account, the cash and the pay in slip are received by the Cashier/Teller and after counting the cash and verifying that the cash received tallies with the amount shown on the pay-in-slip, the actual amount of cash received and the name of the person who remitted the same are entered by the Cashier/Teller on a prescribed form maintained by the Cashier. In the instant case, if anyone had entertained any doubt about the actual amount remitted as a result of the so-called "over-writing" of the figures, he could have easily verified the form maintained by the Cashier who had received the cash of Rs. 3,500/- received from the complainant. The opposite party did not care to do so. That itself is a sure sign of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

14. The Bank employees are given special training in money transactions including various kinds of figure work. It is incredible to think that a person who has received training in banking operations and who, day in and day out, deals in figure work, could not read the legible figures written on the pay-in-slip. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that the plea of overwriting has been invented to cover up the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Further, the plea of over-writing itself seems to be an afterthought because, in its letter dated 22.3.1995 (Ex. A-3) addressed to M/s. Southern Sea Foods Ltd., the opposite party had stated as under :

"The captioned cheque was inadvertantly returned by us through clearing on 17.3.1995 We request you to represent the cheque to us."

This is a clear proof to show that the opposite party itself had conceded deficiency of service on its part. After havin

g sent such a letter, it is baffling as to how the opposite party can claim that the mistake was due to over-writing of the figures by the complainant. Hence, as stated above, it is just an after-thought to escape from its liability. 15. As a result of dishonouring of the cheque, the complainant was denied of the supply of the material (Ex. A-2). There is little doubt that such an incident in the business circles would lead to loss in business, loss of reputation and goodwill. Thus, there is evidence to show that the complainant has suffered loss in business as a result of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore, the complainant is entitled for compensation. The plea that the opposite party had subsequently honoured the cheque, has no relevance in the light of the fact that the complainant had already suffered loss in business and damage of goodwill. In the circumstances, the finding of the District Forum is correct and it is unassailable on any ground. There is no material illegality or procedural infirmity in the order of the District Forum. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation granted also is quite reasonable. Hence, there is no reason at all to interfere with the order of the District Forum. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is confirmed. Costs Rs. 750 /-. Appeal dismissed.