(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.) Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai in decreeing the suit as prayed for, the present appeal came to be filed by the first defendant. For the sake of convenience the parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff case is as follows;-
The plaintiff is a reputed exporter of textiles and was doing business and the plaintiff is a 100% export oriented unit and he was maintaining current account with the first defendant. The first defendant also extending credit facilities to the plaintiff on valuable security. In spite of excellent business and prompt payments, timely financial assistance and service of the first defendant is not forthcoming. In the month of May 1996, the plaintiff has received export orders worth more than US$ 2,00,000. As the timely financial assistance from the first defendant was not forthcoming, the plaintiff had to look for financial assistance from other sources.
ii) The second defendant had offered to help the plaintiff by giving a loan of Rs.11,00,000/- and informed that he had a fixed deposit in his daughters' name in Bangalore and that he would close the same prematurely and then, offer the loan to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the second defendant brought demand draft drawn at Union Bank of India, in favour of his daughters and opened saving account as the guardian of his daughters with the first defendant bank. The second defendant as natural guardian gave a hand written letter to the first defendant to transfer the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the current account of plaintiff from the saving bank account opened by the second defendant in the name of his daughters. Accordingly, Rs.11,00,000/- finance was given by the second defendant, which was transferred to the plaintiff's current account. Thereafter, the plaintiff also used that amount to make payment to the suppliers in Karur. After that the plaintiff has repaid the above said loan to the second defendant between July 1996 and August 1996 totalling a sum of Rs.11,35,000/- by way of cheques and cash. Thereafter, also the plaintiff availed some financial assistance from the second defendant. At that time, the second defendant expressed his desire to become a partner in the plaintiff's business, which was declined by the plaintiff. Therefore, the second defendant has asked for more interest than the agreed rate of interest. Thereafter, a negotiation took place in the presence of well wishers. Accordingly, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- extra to the second defendant by way of cheque on 30.11.1997. The second defendant also issued a receipt to the plaintiff to that effect. The second defendant turned hostile towards the plaintiff due to disappointment of not being able to become a partner.
iii) After sometime in the year 1998, the second defendant appears to have sent a false complaint to the first defendant bank stating that the 3 demand drafts drawn in favour of his daughters were fraudulently encashed and that amount was not credited to true owners. The first defendant bank without permission of the plaintiff started acting in connivance with the second defendant and debited the plaintiff current account with Rs.12,10,000/- without any authorization. The above debit was made without written permission of the account holder. Due to unauthorized and illegal debit made by the first defendant, the plaintiff was put to hardship resulting cancellation export orders and his cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was also dishonoured by the first defendant. Due to such dishonour of cheque, the goodwill which was put up by the plaintiff is also suffered. Despite several letters and telegrams, the first defendant did not take any action. Records sought by the plaintiff is also not given by the first defendant bank. The plaintiff also sent legal notice on 10.01.1999.
iv) The second defendant also suppressed the complaint given by the second defendant in the Banking Ombudsman. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed a writ petition before the Principal Seat in W.P.No.19710 of 1999 for a direction to the Banking Ombudsman for furnishing a copy of the complaint. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.07.2000 permitting the petitioner therein to file a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. As per the direction of the High Court, the plaintiff has filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman on 24.07.2000 itself and the Banking Ombudsman has passed an award on 19.08.2000 and found that there was deficiency in service of the first defendant bank. Hence, the present suit.
3. The first defendant filed a written statement contending that there was no negligence and deficiency of service on their part. It is the case of the first defendant that the second defendant did not come to the bank to open a minor bank account and he is not having any transaction or account with the first defendant bank. It is the further contention of the first defendant that the plaintiff due to closeness with the bank staff managed to open an account in the name of the second defendant's daughters. The plaintiff took advantage of his frequent visits and got the amount transferred from the payees account to the plaintiff's account on the same day. The fraudulent act of the plaintiff came to be known only when the second defendant gave a complaint. Therefore, the first defendant transferred the amount of Rs.12,10,000/- from the plaintiff current account and deposited in a sundry deposit account to safeguard the interest of the three depositors. After the second defendant moved the Banking Ombudsman, the first defendant has re-credited the respective saving bank amount of three depositors out of the balance from the sundry deposit account. The amount has been transferred only after informing the plaintiff over phone. It is also not necessary to obtain a written permission to debit his account or transfer the amount from his account. It is also the contention of the first defendant that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The second defendant denied the allegation that the plaintiff was in need of financial assistance and he has offered a loan of Rs.11,00,000/-. It is the further contention of the second defendant that he neither brought demand draft to the bank nor opened any account with the first defendant bank nor promised to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and this defendant are close family friends and the plaintiff was well aware of the family matters, personal and otherwise of this defendant. In fact, the the plaintiff was even aware of the financial position and dealings of this defendant. This defendant rendered financial assistance to the plaintiff for which he has paid service charges by the plaintiff. While repaying the amount to various parties from whom this defendant arranged money, the plaintiff committed breach of trust, as a result which there was a misunderstanding between them. In the month of November 1997. Finally it was compromised at the intervention of friends and well wishers. Only after this episode, this defendant got his own doubt about the integrity of the plaintiff. While so, only after investigation he came to know that the plaintiff clandestinely gained possession of the drafts stated supra and with the connivance of the first defendant with whom he was having account, managed to open saving bank account in the name the daughters of the second defendant as if they are majors, in fact 2 daughters are minor at that time. This defendant did not come to the bank to open the account as alleged by the plaintiff. Whereas, the plaintiff who took the signature of the daughters in account opening forms using their ignorance and without even taking the children to the bank opened the Saving Bank account with the first defendant as if all the children are major. On the same day the amount is also transferred to the plaintiff current account. Immediately after knowing the fraud committed by the plaintiff, he sent a letter to the first defendant bank on 24.03.1998. Thereafter, the bank officials came to his house for enquiry. Only, then he came to know about the opening of account in his daughters name. Hence, he has filed a complaint against the first defendant before Banking Ombudsman in complaint No.C51/98/99. In its award dated 21.08.1998, the Banking Ombudsman has directed the first defendant bank to re-credit the amount together with interest to the account of the second defendant's daughter. It is also the contention of the defendant that a sum of Rs.11,35,000/- paid to him, is only in order to repay to friends and third parties from whom this defendant has arranged finance. The alleged agreement dated 05.11.1997 would not help the plaintiff in any way. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues are framed by the Trial Court:-
i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
ii)Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary parties?
iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount with subsequent interest as prayed for?
iv) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?
6. On the side of the plaintiff PW1 was examined and exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A27 were marked. On the side of the defendants DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B17 were marked. After considering the evidence and materials, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the first defendant bank though filed the present appeal, in fact the learned Trial Judge has decreed the suit against both the defendants to pay the suit amount with interest and directed the first defendant to pay damages. The second defendant has not filed any appeal. Only the bank has filed the appeal challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit was filed in the year 2002 after three years of the alleged transfer of amount from the plaintiff current account No.450 to the saving account of the second defendant's daughters. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of transfer of the account i.e. 06.05.1998, whereas the suit has been filed in the year 2002 and it is barred by limitation. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the there is dispute only between the plaintiff and the second defendant. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was transferred from the saving bank account standing in the name of the second defendant's daughter to the plaintiff current account. When the second defendant raised a complaint in the year 1998, the bank re-transferred the account to the original account holder. Therefore, the bank cannot be held liable for deficiency services. The matter is between the plaintiff and the second defendant with regard to certain financial dealings. The bank has bonafidely taking into consideration of the fact that originally a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was transferred from the saving bank account of the second defendant's daughters to the plaintiff current account on 31.05.1996, debited a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- from the plaintiff account on 06.05.1998. Therefore, the same has been done as per the direction of the Banking Ombudsman . Therefore, the Trial Court ought not have passed the decree against the first defendant. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that absolutely there is no evidence for alleged damages for Rs.5,00,000/-. The Trial Court has also passed such an order granting damages and interest for suit amount is also awarded at the rate of 12%, which is not according to law. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/first respondent submitted that immediately after the amount was transferred from the plaintiff current account to the saving bank account of the second defendant's daughters without his written permission, he made a complaint to the bank. But, there was no response. Therefore, he has filed a writ petition seeking for a direction to furnish a copy of the complaint before Banking Ombudsman, whereas the High Court in its order granted liberty to the plaintiff to file fresh complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and accordingly he was prosecuting the same bonafidely in a Writ Court and also before the Banking Ombudsman. When the plaintiff is pursuing his remedy bonfidely and in good faith before the regular forum, Section 14 of the Limitation Act held applicable to the facts of the present case and submitted that the period which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence in a wrong forum has to be excluded. Hence the suit has been filed on 02.04.2012, is well within the period of limitation. It is the further contention of the first respondent that admittedly for opening saving account in the name of the second defendant's daughters on 31.05.1996, a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was encashed. Therefore, the demand drafts drawn in the name of the second defendant's daughters and deposited in the saving account and thereafter transferred to plaintiff current account No.450. Thus, all the above process has been done with the help of the second defendant, in fact, he has offered a financial assistance. After 22 months of such transaction, the second defendant has sent a false complaint in favour of some misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the second defendant in a financial transaction. Thereafter, the first defendant bank without any written authorization, had debited a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- from the plaintiff's current account on 06.05.1998 and transferred the same to the saving account of the second defendant's daughters. Such debit has been made illegally in connivance with the second defendant. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that though a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was originally given by the second defendant in the year 1996, the same has been paid to the second defendant by cheques and cash, which has also clearly established on record. The second defendant has also admitted the same in his cross-examination. When that being so, again a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- was credited to the account of the second defendant's daughters without any authorization from the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge has considered the entire aspect and decreed the suit. Because of such debit, the plaintiff has suffered mental agony and his cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has also been dishonoured. Hence, the damages ordered by the Trial Court also does not require any interference. In support of his Judgment the learned counsel relied on the following judgments;
i)(2009) 2 MLJ 744 (SC) (Shakti Tubes Ltd. v. State of Bihar), wherein the ratio decidendi is as follows:-
?Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, speaks of prosecution of the proceedings in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or ' other cause of a like nature', is unable to entertain it. When the writ petition was filed by the appellant a part of the writ petition was admitted. The writ petition was not entertained in respect of the issue of escalated price for reasons stated by it. Therefore, in view of the fact that a part of the writ petition was admitted for hearing, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the same was maintainable. Appellant was therefore, pursuing the said remedy bonafide and in good faith. Accordingly, the time taken in prosecuting before High Court, obviously perused diligently and bonafide, needs to be excluded.?
ii) (2011) 4 MLJ 851 (SC), (Coal India Ltd. v. Ujjal Transport Agency), wherein the ratio decidendi is as follows:-
?The period of time spent before a wrong forum in filing of in filing of application for setting aside an award under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be excluded for the purposes of period of limitation, if the bonafides and due diligence in pursuing their remedy before such wrong forum is established.?
iii)(2009) 7 MLJ 845 (State of T.N. v. E.R.Sundaram), wherein the ratio decidendi is as follows;-
?It is no doubt true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the arbitration proceedings. However, when the party has approached the wrong forum in filing the petition for setting aside arbitration award, the question regarding the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act will have to be gone into.?
iv)2008(5) CTC 741 (Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secretary Irrigation Department), wherein it is stated as follows:-
?Section 14 of Limitation Act does not provide for fresh period of limitation but provides only for exclusion of certain period. Scheme of Arbitration and Conciliation Act discloses legislative intent to make Section 14 applicable to Petition under
Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Ratio laid down in State of Goa v. Western Builders, 2006 (6) SCC 239, correctly states law and said ratio reaffirmed and restated.?
9. In the light of the above, the submissions now made by the learned counsel on either side, the points arise for consideration are as follows:
1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
2) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the first defendant in debiting a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- from the plaintiff current account without any authorization from him and transferred the same to the second defendant daughters account?
3. Whether the first defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages?
Point:1
10. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- was debited from the current account of the first respondent/plaintiff and transferred the same to the second defendant's daughters saving account by the second respondent/first defendant on 06.05.1998. From the evidence, it could be seen that immediately after the above transaction, the plaintiff has sent several communication to the bank about such debit. As nothing forthcoming from the bank, he also sought for a copy of the complaint and also the alleged award passed by the Banking Ombudsman based on the complaint stated to have been given by the second defendant on 21.08.1998. Only when his request was not headed, he has filed a writ petition in the year 1999 in W.P.No.19710 of 1998 for a direction directing the first respondent to furnish a copy of the complaint filed by the second defendant. The above writ petition came to be disposed of on 05.07.2000, giving liberty to the plaintiff to lodge a proper complaint to the first respondent and also directed the Banking Ombudsman to pass orders within a period of six weeks after receipt of a complaint by the plaintiff. Accordingly the Banking Ombudsman has passed an award on 19.08.2000 where it is held as follows:-
?11. In the result, an Award is passed under Clause 20 read with clause 13 of Banking Ombudsman Scheme that the dispute raised by the complainant and the bank is not a case of mere deficiency of service of a bank and cannot be resolved under the Scheme and the parties are at liberty to resolve the same under the avenues available to them under law. The complaint is treated as closed.?
11. Thereafter, the suit came to be filed. From the records it can be seen that the plaintiff was bonafidely prosecuting the matter in the writ petition. Subsequent to the order of the writ petition he has also moved the Banking Ombudsman and an award has been passed as stated above. When the person has prosecuting a claim in a wrong forum bonafidely and in good faith, provision of Section 14 of the limitation Act come into play. Therefore, the period spent in pursuing the writ petition and Banking Ombudsman necessarily to be excluded in reckoning the limitation period. Though as per the original cause of action, suit ought to have been filed within 3 years, from 06.05.1998 i.e. on or before 06.05.2001, it is to be noted that the writ petition was filed in the year 1999 and it is came to be disposed of only in the year 2000. Therefore more than one year period have necessarily to be excluded in the period of reckoning the limitation. Admittedly, the suit is filed on 10.04.2002, if one year period excluded, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 06.05.2002, whereas the suit is filed in this case on 10.04.2002. Therefore, we constrained to hold that the suit filed on 10.04.2002 is maintainable particularly when the plaintiff was bonafidely pursuing the matter in writ jurisdiction and also in Banking Ombudsman. Banking Ombudsman has passed an award. It is now well settled that the ?Court? as stated in Section 14 of the Limitation Act need not be a civil Court alone. Any authority or tribunal having the trapping of the Court would be a Court within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Hence, when the writ petition and Banking Ombudsman proceedings had the trapping of the Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act will come into play. Moreover, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence we are constrained to hold that the suit filed by the plaintiff is well in time. The contention of the appellant counsel cannot sustain in this aspect. Accordingly, this point is answered.
Point No.2
12. It is also not disputed by the first respondent bank that the plaintiff was having current account in their bank and they also extending the financial assistance to him. It is the case of the plaintiff that when the financial assistance was not forthcoming from time to time, he had to borrow the financial assistance from third parties to run his business successfully. Accordingly in the year 1996, the second defendant offered to extend Rs.11,00,000/- as financial assistance to the plaintiff and in fact he has promised that the demand drafts stand in the name of his daughters would be encashed and amount would be paid to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, saving bank account in the name of the second defendant's daughters were opened in the first defendant bank and the demand drafts were encashed and a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was transferred from the saving bank account to the plaintiff current account No.450 on 31.05.1996. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after such financial assistance, the above amount has been repaid to the second defendant on various dates by cheques as well as cash. The plaintiff in this regard has categorically pleaded about the payment of Rs.11,35,000/- from 22.07.1996 to 12.08.1998 to the second defendant in paragraph 7 of the pleadings. The receipt of this account namely Rs.11,35,000/- not denied in the pleadings of the second defendant. In Paragraph 7 of the written statement, the only contention of the second defendant in this regard is that such payment were made to him only to repay the friends and third parties from whom he has made finance arrangement to the plaintiff. But the second defendant in his entire evidence, has not brought any material to suggest that the sum of Rs.11,35,000/- received by him only towards the debts of third parties. In the absence of any materials, admitted pleadings and his cross examination will clinchingly established the fact that the amount of Rs.11,35,000/- as pleaded in paragraph 7 of the plaint is received by the second defendant as repayment of loan of Rs.11,00,000/-, which was originally transferred from the saving bank account of his daughters which opened on 31.05.1996. Though the defendants 1 and 2 contended that the second defendant did not come to the bank to open the saving account and the plaintiff himself opened the account and fraudulently transferred the amount from the saving bank account to his current account, such contention cannot be true at all for the simple reason that the Bank despite notice given by the plaintiff to produce the relevant documents with regard to the opening of account, has failed to produce the same. When the material document is withheld by the bank, the only presumption that would arise that the defence put forth by the defendants cannot be true at all, withholding of documents give rise to draw a adverse inference against the Bank. DW1 the bank manager in his evidence also admitted in the cross examination that saving account were opened in their bank in the name of the minor children of the second defendant. Even in the cross examination dated 21.10.2008 though he has stated that the saving account is not opened by the second defendant, but failed to produce the documents in question. If the bank was so firm in their allegation, they should have produced the documents before the Court to assert their allegation but they failed to do so. Whereas DW2, the second defendant in the cross examination admitted that he has seen the original documents in the bank, and specimen signature card and he has also seen the signatures of his daughters. The above facts clearly established that in fact saving accounts were opened by the second defendant himself. The contention of the second defendant that the fate of the demand draft of the year 1996 came to be known only in the year 1998 is also cannot be accepted. It is against a normal human conduct. At the relevant time, the demand draft is valid only for 6 months. If fate of huge amount of Rs.11,00,000/- is not known to the parties, immediately they would have rushed to the bank, whereas he has made a complaint about the said demand draft with the bank only on 27.04.1998 almost after two years. That conduct itself clearly probablise the plaintiff case that there was a business dealings between the plaintiff and the second defendant. As the second defendant offer to become a partner in the plaintiff firm was negatived by the plaintiff there arose some misunderstanding and he developed hostile attitude and lodged a complaint. This fact is further probablised by the pleadings of the plaintiff and subsequent payment received by the defendant in the year 1997. Ex.A5, dated 05.11.1997 shows that a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- was paid to the defendant in the business transaction in full quit. Only after this Ex.A5, the complaint stated to have been given by the second defendant to the bank on 27.04.1998. These facts clearly probablised the plaintiff case. At any event, the findings rendered by the Trial Court after detailed discussion with regard to the receipt of the original loan of Rs.11,00,000/- given by the second defendant to the first defendant in the year 1996 was paid has not even challenged by the second defendant by filing the appeal.
13. Be that as it may, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the bank officials with the collusion of the second defendant debited a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- from his current account No.450 on 06.05.1998 and transferred the amount to the second defendant daughter's saving account. Such a debit has been made without written permission of the plaintiff. Though the bank has taken a stand in the written statement that only after the complaint of the second defendant, they have debited the account and transferred the amount after the second defendant moved the Banking Ombudsman. In this regard it is useful to refer the award of the Ombudsman, which is marked as Ex.A18, wherein it is clearly stated that the forum not suggested that the amount would be paid without written authorization, the bank has debited a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- from the plaintiff current account No.450.
14. Ex.A20 recommendation dated 21.08.1998 clearly shows that in fact the accounts were properly introduced and the signature appearing on the account opening forms were not disowned by the complainant. Award/Ex.A18 clearly shows that they are not suggested for re-credit the account and admittedly, the amount has been re-transferred when the proceedings before the Banking Ombudsman were pending and before that a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- was debited on 06.05.1998 itself without any authorization from the plaintiff. It is to be noted that admittedly, the second defendant neither denied the signature even before the Banking Ombudsman nor challenged the finding of the Trial Court. Further, the evidence available on record also clearly shows that the second defendant has received a sum of Rs.11,35,000/- as discussed above and he lodged a complaint only in the year 1998 with regard to the demand draft. All these facts clearly probabilise the plaintiff case that only the second defendant with the collusion of the first defendant has got the amount re-transferred to his daughters account in the year 1998. Though it is the contention of the first defendant that they debited the amount from the plaintiff current account after informing him over the phone, absolutely there is no evidence to substantiate the same. Obligation is attached towards the customers and they cannot simply deduct or debit huge amount from the customers account without any written authorization. Whereas in this case, they did so and the second defendant having received the loan amount and also executed Ex.A5 in the year 1997 has tried to take advantage of the some lapses found during the opening of the saving bank account in his daughters' account, tried to make an attempt to enrich himself by getting re- transfer of sum of Rs.12,10,000/- which has clearly established in this case. Therefore, the contention of the bank that only after the information to the plaintiff they debited the account cannot be sustained and such practice cannot be encouraged. The defence of the bank as if the saving bank account is not at all opened by the second defendants' daughter, itself not established. The opening form and original documents have been withheld by them deliberately. Further the second defendant is also admitted the signature of his daughter found in the opening forms. That apart Ex.A20 proceedings of Banking Ombudsman also shows that the second defendant did not deny the signature found in the opening forms. Despite such evidence available, the bank defence that the second defendant did not come to the bank for opening the account in the year 1996 and only the plaintiff has opened the account cannot be countenanced at all. Such a contention of the bank still make their responsibility more worse allowing some third party to open the account in the name of somebody is also nothing but deliberate fraud committed by the bank. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that once the bank has failed to establish the fact that the amount has been properly debited from the current account of the plaintiff and transferred the same to the second defendant's daughters account, certainly they also responsible for the loss to the plaintiff. Accordingly, we constrained to hold that the defendant 1 and 2 are certainly liable to pay the amount debited from the plaintiffs account. However, with regard to the rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation, we are of the view that the interest can be reduced, in view of the fact that some of the bank officials colluded with the second defendant, the bank cannot suffer for the same. Hence, interest rate alone is modified at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Thus the second point is answered accordingly.
Point 3
15. Though the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages. Though it is established that due to debit of Rs.12,10,000/-, one of the plaintiff's cheque also dishonoured by the first defendant bank. We are of the view that without evidence as to the nature of damages suffered by him, liquidated damages as prayed by the plaintiff cannot be granted. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the bank in collusion with the second defendant has made the plaintiff to run from pillar to post and also fact that due to the debit of Rs.12,10,000/- from the plaintiff current account, suddenly the plaintiff cheques for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was dishonoured. In view of the same, reputation of the plaintiff would have also been affected by such dishonour. Hence, we are constrained to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards the damages and the same is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) for damages is ordered.
16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs ten thousand only) with interest at 12 from 06.05.1998 till 09.04.2002. Thereafter interest at the rate of 6% from 10.04.2002 till the date of realisation. Further a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards damages. Cost awarded by the lower Court shall hold good. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.III, Madurai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.