J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24/03/2003 in O.S.No.569/2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam. The respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the suit.

2. The plaintiff, a Private Limited Company (the plaintiff Company) has a current account with the defendant bank from the year 1986. The plaintiff Company in the normal course of business issued a crossed cheque dated 09/04/1996 for an amount of ₹8,100/- in favour of Vijaya Bank A/c Darshak – Rights, issued out of the current account maintained with the defendant bank. There was sufficient funds in the account to honour the cheque. Inspite of the same, the defendant bank wrongfully dishonoured the cheque citing the reason - 'not arranged for'. When the defendant bank was asked the reason for the dishonour of the cheque, the plaintiff Company was informed that the cheque had been dishonoured due to oversight and that they regretted the wrongful dishonour of the cheque. Due to the wrongful dishonour of the cheque, the plaintiff Company suffered a monetary loss of ₹1,50,000/- as they were unable to get the allotment of the Rights Shares of Darshak Ltd. Consequentially they were unable to fulfill the terms of a negotiated prior deal for sale of the shares on allotment. The wrongful and negligent dishonour of the cheque has also resulted in loss of reputation and prestige for the plaintiff Company among bankers, Companies, merchant bankers, traders and its customers. The defendant bank was duly intimated about the monetary loss and also the resultant loss of reputation, prestige and other consequences. Though the defendant bank was asked several times to make good the loss sustained by the plaintiff Company, they have failed to do so. Hence the suit claiming damages to the tune of ₹5 lakhs with costs from the defendant and their assets.

3. The defendant bank filed written statement admitting that the cheque had been wrongfully dishonoured due to an oversight. However, there was no negligence on the part of the defendant bank. The allegations that the plaintiff Company had sustained monetary loss and that there was loss of reputation and prestige, are incorrect and false. The defendant bank had expressed its regret and informed the plaintiff that the dishonour took place due to an oversight. The matter was amicably settled between the parties also. The defendant had given a reply to the lawyer notice sent by the plaintiff also. The very fact that the plaintiff kept the issue pending for more than two years and thereafter issued a registered notice dated 15/05/1998 itself would show that the issue had been discussed, sorted out and settled amicably between the parties. The claim made in the plaint is exorbitant. As the plaintiff Company had not sustained any loss, they are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

4. On completion of pleadings, the parties went to trial. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the defendant. The trial court on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, by the impugned judgment dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved, the plaintiff Company has come up in appeal.

5. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the trial court calling for an interference by this Court.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The fact that there was a wrongful dishonour of Ext.A1 cheque of the plaintiff Company is admitted, which according to the defendant, happened to be dishonoured due to an oversight and was not deliberate or due to any negligence on their part. Paragraph 6 of the plaint referring to the monetary loss to the plaintiff Company reads thus - “Arising out of the wrongful dishonour of the cheque the plaintiff company suffered a monetary l