IMPORTANT POINT
Debit entry in bank account of complainant held justified.

ORDER

None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. It is seen that the petitioner has not appeared on the last two dates of hearing, i.e., 28.10.2020 and 22.07.2020. The said order read as under:

“Order dated 28.10.2020

On the last date of hearing, the following order has been passed:

“None appears on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round. Learned counsel for the respondent is ready with the argument. Accordingly, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to argue the matter on the next date of hearing.

List the matter on 28.10.2020, the date already fixed.”

Today also none is present on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round. However, in the interest of justice, one another last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to pursue the matter on the next date of hearing, otherwise the matter will be appropriately decided.

List the matter on 6th November 2020".

3. Learned counsel for the respondent is present and has been heard. Learned counsel for the respondent states that a cheque was deposited by the petitioner with the Bank and the same was sent for clearing. However, the amount was credited in the account of the petitioner, as per the guidelines issued by the RBI. After sometime, the cheque was received without clearance due to insufficient funds. But in the meanwhile, the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.1,00,500/- from his account. The respondent Bank gave notice to the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.79,800. The complainant did not deposit the same and filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum being Complaint no. 298 of 2009. The District Forum vide its order dated 19.02.2010 has dismissed the complaint by observing the following:

“As the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,00,500/- from his account despite dishonouring of the cheque is dishonest act and thus, the debit entry of Rs.79,800/- in the account of complainant is legal and the complainant is liable to be deposited the said amount in the Bank, which has not been deposited by the complainant.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed and with the directions that the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost within one month”.

4. Thereafter the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission being Appeal no. 4149 of 2010. The State commission also dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 13.02.2015 by observing the following:

“In these circumstances, it is the moral duty of the complainant to deposit the amount withdrawn from the bank. The bank had not committed any illegality by making entry of debit outstanding of Rs.79,800/-. The District Forum had correctly held that the Bank is entitled to recover the aforesaid amount. Appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed being devoid of substance and thus dismissed accordingly”.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the complainant is not entitled to any portion of the cheque amount when the cheque has been dishonored. Thus there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the Bank had filed a Civil Suit for recovery of the amount from the petitioner. The Civil Suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent Bank. The Bank has taken separate action for executing the decree.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and have examined the record. We see that both Fora below have given concurrent finding on facts that the petitioner was not entitled to withdraw the amount from the Bank as the cheque was dishonored. This Commission cannot reassess the facts as against the concurrent findings given by the fora below in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286" wherein the following has been observed:-

“23. The National Commission has to