Date of filing : 09.01.2017.

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT C.C. No. 16 of 2017 Wednesday, the 31^st day of July 2024 P.K.Venkatachalam

53/3B, K.K.Nagar, Mohanur Road, Namakkal. ... Complainant - Vs –

1. State Bank of India, Represented by its Manager, No.2, Dr.Sankaran Road, Namakkal.

2. State Bank of India, Represented by its General Manager, Circle top House, 16, College Lane, Chennai – 600 006. ... Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. D.Saravanan Counsel for the Opposite Parties : M/s. J.Pothiraj This Complaint came up for final hearing on 11.09.2023, and after hearing the arguments and perusing the materials on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

ORDER

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This Complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as against the Opposite Parties for the following reliefs:-

(i) To direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- towards loss of credit standing, loss of business, loss of reputation and goodwill.

(ii) Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and (iii) Costs of this complaint.

2. In brief, the case of the complainant runs thus: The complainant, who is the Chairman and Managing Director of Kaveri group of Companies, was holding Savings Bank Account Number 10444579521, with the 1^st Opposite Party, from the year 1989. He had issued a cheque, dated 08.09.2015, bearing number 018753 for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- in favour of M/s Jeeva Puthakalayam on the above mentioned savings account. But, to his shock and surprise, the said cheque was not honoured by advice of the 1^st opposite party Bank dated 19.10.2015, sent to M/s Jeeva Puthakalayam, stating that “We advise that as sufficient clear balance was not available in the related deposit account on the dates the above cheque came for clearing, it was returned with a reasons Refer to drawer.” In fact the complainant had issued three other cheques on 07.09.2015 and had issued three cheques on 08.09.2015, which were all honoured on the same dates and there was more than enough balance in his account to ensure payment of the cheque amount of Rs.60,00,000/-. Hence, the complainant in person approached the 1^st opposite party and enquired as to on what ground the cheque was dishonoured. The 1^st opposite party informed him that they would forward a written explanation for the same. However, no explanation was sent to him and only the advice dated 19.10.2015, was sent. In the meantime, the said M/s. Jeeva Puthakalayam sent a communication, dated 10.09.2015, to the complainant informing that the cheque had bounced and also threatened to sue the complainant and initiate criminal action for issuing a cheque without sufficient funds. The complainant again by a communication dated 28.10.2015, requested the 1^st opposite party for a clarification regarding the return of the cheque when there was sufficient balance in the account. The 1^st opposite party, instead of offering a clarification, for the return of the cheque, added fuel to fire and further aggravated the issue by sending another letter, dated 28.10.2015, to M/s Jeeva Puthakalayam stating that “We refer to our earlier letter No.BR 16/26 dated 19.10.2016 and clarify that the referred cheque was returned for the reason of Funds insufficient.” The complainant, who had been a customer of the 1^st opposite party for more than 27 years, once again approached the 1^st opposite party in person and requested them to inform M/s. Jeeva Puthakalayam that the cheque was dishonoured by mistake and also to allow them to re-present the cheque and further requested the 1^st opposite party to furnish an explanation for the dishonour, but till the date of filing the complaint, the 1^st opposite party has not even bothered to address either the complainant or M/s. Jeeva Puthakalayam, explaining the fa