Santosh Kumari vs BANK OF RAJASTHAN

SMT. Santosh Kumar is a co-owner of a Shop-cum- office No. 32, Sector 20D, Chandigarh. The total rent was Rs. 9,712/- per month, whereas her share was only Rs. 1,942.50. A cheque dated 7.6.1996 in her favour was handed over to Bank of Rajasthan, Chandigarh on 9.3.1996. It was credited in her account in February, 1997 and there was a delay of 11 months. The District Forum-II ordered on 1.3.1999 that the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. for the aforesaid period of 11 months. ''Besides this, costs Rs. 250/- were also awarded. Considering the aforesaid relief as inadequate, the present appeal has been preferred.

THE reason for delay in not crediting the cheque in view of the plea of the Bank that it was lost after having been received in the Bank is not convincing. THE supposed plea that it was dis- honoured for difference of amount in words and figures could not be established by the Bank. THE plea of the complainant had been that she as well as her husband were mal-treated in the premises of the Bank while they were protesting in respect of the behaviour of the respondent. THE finding of the District Forum that the cheque in question was not returned to the complainant nor information in writing that it was dishonoured given. THE requirement of returning the bounced cheque was not fulfilled. THE story that it was lost at a subsequent stage in the Bank is not convincing and at any rate it itself amounts to deficiency. The learned Counsel for the appellant has specifically stressed that as regards the interest awarded it was lawful claim of the complainant and the costs awarded in the sum of Rs. 250/- was on account of the failure of the respondent- Bank to establish its pleas and no compensation has been awarded to the complainant by District Forum for the inconvenience it suffered at the hands of the bankers. On behalf of the respondent it has been stressed that the interest should have been at a rate less than 12% p.a. because it was not a case of Fixed Deposit and the cost awarded at the sum of Rs. 250/- meant that it included the damage allegedly suffered by the complainant. We do not agree with this proposition. The relief granted by the District Forum is at a lower side. We hold that in addition to the relief granted the Bank shall also pay damages in the sum of Rs. 250/- together with the costs of the appeal, Rs. 150/- and with this enhanced relief and modification the appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.