2019 (3) TMI 1080 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - levy of additional charges - senior citizen - section 138 of NI Act - Held that - The order passed by the first respondent runs to more than 30 pages and most irrelevant aspects relating to criminal prosecution of dishonoured cheque, relating to cut and paste portions of the entire Sections 92 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, have been written. Thereafter, further cut and paste portions from an unknown source had also been given - the first respondent had completely misdirected himself as to the nature of the grievances of the petitioner. It must be remembered that the dishonour of the cheque of the petitioner was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner. It was an error on the part of the Bank. The petitioner cannot be mulcted with a torturous procedure as was done in this case by the respondents. Further, the respondents have acted with no heart. They do not seem to understand the plight of a senior citizen who has been a dutiful citizen all his life. The impugned order does not convey any reason for imposing the charges of ₹ 1,000/- on the petitioner - the first respondent had seriously erred in passing the impugned order and consequently, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to charges imposed for cheque facility restoration.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a senior citizen, filed a Writ Petition against the Tamil Nadu Electricity 'Ombudsman' and others, seeking to quash an order confirming charges of ?1,000 for restoration of cheque facility. The petitioner had issued a cheque for ?500 for electricity charges, which was erroneously returned by the bank. Despite the account being active, the bank demanded ?1,100 to avoid penalties. The petitioner paid and later proved the bank's error. The respondents insisted on cash payments for three bills before allowing cheque payments again. The petitioner raised complaints to various authorities, leading to a common appeal and the impugned order dated 09.03.2012, rejecting the refund claim.

The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, citing Clause 15.3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004. They contended that the petitioner's remedy lay with the bank for service deficiency. The court heard arguments from both sides, noting the first respondent's absence in the proceedings. The court highlighted the petitioner's grievance against the order denying the refund of ?1,000 based on the cheque dishonor, emphasizing the bank's acknowledgment of the error.

The court found that the respondents failed to understand the bank's error and unfairly burdened the petitioner. It criticized the respondents for not considering the petitioner's situation and for imposing arbitrary conditions. The court noted the misdirection in the first respondent's order, which failed to address the bank's negligence in dishonoring the cheque. The court held that the order lacked reasoning and did not withstand scrutiny.

The court appreciated the petitioner's efforts to challenge the unlawful action and highlighted Rule 15.3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004, emphasizing the need to examine each case individually. The court concluded that the first respondent's order was erroneous, setting it aside and directing the refund of ?1,000 to the petitioner within four weeks. The court did not award any costs in this matter.