Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.     The respondents resisted the case and contended that the complaint may be dismissed for non-joinder of the drawer of the cheque who was a necessary party; and also for mis-joinder of regional officials of the banks who had superannuated. They admitted that the cheque was misplaced by them but contented that the petitioner was taking undue advantage of a small human error. They submitted that the petitioner should have initiated legal proceedings against the drawer of the cheque and also stated that the petitioner had opened an account on 31.07.2012, and the very next date he deposited the cheque of Rs.4,00,000/-which was dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'. The bank immediately sent a stop payment instruction to the UCO Bank to avoid encashment of cheque by any third party. The respondents also obtained the image scan copy of the cheque and duplicate cheque return memo from the UCO Bank and requested the petitioner to take appropriate action against the drawer of the cheque based on them. The petitioner refused to do so, even though the respondents informed the petitioner that they would extend their full support and help to him in prosecuting the case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the bank was prepared to give evidence in any court about the misplacement of the cheque.

4.     The drawer of the cheque Mr Y Raju did not have any amount more than Rs.700/- in his account, at any point of time and also that excepting for the dishonoured cheque transaction petitioner's account also had no other transactions. The respondents contended that the petitioner did not sustain any loss due to the acts of the bank and hence claimed that they were not liable for any damages. As the complaint was filed in a frivolous and vexatious manner, only to take undue advantage of a small human error, they prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.