JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---This is a complaint by a customer against the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank, Pune Branch as regards the deficiency in the service of the Bank. The complainant alleged that he received a cheque of Rs. 37,500/- from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune in Claim Petition No. 745 of 1988. The cheque was drawn on State Bank of India by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune and was delivered to the complainant on 30-4-1992. The complainant admittedly was having an account with the opposite party bearing No. 18373 with Rs. 300/- as balance amount. The complainant alleged that he deposited the aforesaid cheque of Rs. 37,500/- in the aforesaid account with opposite party and issued a cheque of Rs. 11,250/- on 6-5-1992, but the same was dishonoured with the endorsement "funds insufficient". The complainant, therefore, alleged that despite his depositing the cheque of Rs. 37,500/- in his account his withdrawal cheque of Rs. 11,250/- on 6-5-1992 was not honoured by the opposite party as a result of which he suffered business loss as well as damage to his reputation. The complainant, therefore, claimed Rs. 7,80,000/- with 30% p.a. interest towards the compensation. 2. The complainants claim was opposed by the opposite party by filing a written version. Inter alia, the Bank submitted that the allegations are vague and the amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. It is submitted by the Bank that the cheque was deposited by the complainant on 30-4-1992. The 1st May, 1993, was a public holiday being Maharashtra Day. The 2nd May, 1993 was a Saturday. The 3rd May, 1993 was Sunday and the 4th May, 1993 was again a public holiday on account of the Maha Shiv Jayanti. On the basis of these facts, the Bank contended that the cheque could not be cleared by 5th May, 1992 for the aforesaid reasons and, therefore submitted that this is not a case of negligence and the complainants complaint be rejected. 3. We have heard Shri Mujumdar, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Das, Advocate for the opposite party. In view of the admitted facts of the Cheque of Rs. 37,500/- being presented by the complainant on 30-4-1992 and the cheque of Rs. 3. We have heard Shri Mujumdar, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Das, Advocate for the opposite party. In view of the admitted facts of the Cheque of Rs. 37,500/- being presented by the complainant on 30-4-1992 and the cheque of Rs. 11,250/- being not honoured it is to be seen as to whether there has been negligence in the service of the opposite party and whether the complainant has been put to loss and is entitled to claim Rs. 7,80,000/- towards the compensation. 4. It is contended by Shri Mujumdar, Advocate that the complainant is a handicapped person and was maintaining himself by running a wayside tea stall. It is submitted that the Cheque of Rs. 37,500/- was received by him from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal towards the compensation for the injury suffered by him in the accident. According to Shri Mujumdar, because the cheque of Rs. 11,250/- having not honoured by the opposite party complainant had to purchase the articles for his tea stall by arranging the cash and also suffered a loss in his business. It is also contended that the complainant lost reputation because his cheque was not honoured by the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that the Cheque of Rs. 11,250/- was issued by the complainant in his own favour i.e. `Self. Since the aforesaid cheque was issued by the complainant in his own favour, there cannot be a question of loss of reputation or damage. Had it been a cheque issued in favour of some other person, then it could reasonably be said that the complainants reputation has been affected by dishonouring of the cheque. The only loss having caused to the complainant is that he could not get cash of Rs. 11,250/- for about 10 to 12 days; and that he had to pay some charges of Rs. 7/- towards the returning of cheque. Even assuming that the complainant has suffered a loss on account of the cash amount for the purchase of articles for his shop, the loss cannot be said to be to such a proportion which would entail the complainant to claim a huge compensation of Rs. 7,80,000/-. However, we can understand that complainant was required to pay Rs. 7/- being the charges for returning the cheque on 7-5-1992. Considering the loss of Rs. 7/- and inconvenience of getting the cash of Rs. 7,80,000/-. However, we can understand that complainant was required to pay Rs. 7/- being the charges for returning the cheque on 7-5-1992. Considering the loss of Rs. 7/- and inconvenience of getting the cash of Rs. 11,250/- for a period of 10/12 days late, the complainant can hardly be said to have sustained huge loss as claimed in this complaint. As against this claim of complainant, the explanation offered by the Bank that after the presentation of the cheque on 30-4-1992, there were successively holidays and one Saturday, the Bank was handicapped to arrange for the cheque. We accept this explanation tendered by the Bank as very reasonable and plausible. Under these circumstances, the delay caused in clearing the cheque in question cannot be referred towards the negligence in the service of the opposite party. There appears to be some slackness on the part of the Bank not to respond promptly for the credit of the cheque for which the complainant was required to pay Rs. 7/- unnecessarily. To this aspect of the matter, the complainant is entitled to get back the refund of Rs. 7/- and the reasonable compensation for the inconvenience caused to him for a period of about 10/12 days. It would, therefore, be just and reasonable to award complainant Rs. 100/- as token compensation for the inconvenience caused to him. However, the complainants claim claiming the compensation of Rs. 7,80,000/- on various counts as mentioned in para 20 of his complaint is unreasonable and unjustifiable. We do not find that the complainant had made out a case for the loss of his business for short duration of 10/12 days as a street vendor for selling tea. Hence the claim is required to be rejected. Under these circumstances, we pass the following order:- Order 5. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party, Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank, Pune Branch, Pune is directed to refund to the complainant Rs. 7/- towards the cheque collection charges and Rs. 100/- towards the token compensation. The rest of the complainants claim are hereby rejected. Complaint partly allowed.