JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - In the present writ petition challenge has been made to the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack dated 16.09.2010 passed under Annexure-5 in CD. Case No.91 of 2001 by which the Commission has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner holding that since the bank has already realized its mistake and has expressed sincere regrets, there is no deficiency on its part. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner-Company was maintaining Current Account No. 1295 with opp. party-Dena Bank, Cuttack. It had issued a cheque for Rs.10,000/- on 13.10.1999 drawn on opp. party-Bank in favour of their auditors, M/s Tibrewal Chand and Co. towards their professional fees. On presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured by the O.P.-Bank on the ground of insufficiency of fund. Due to dishonour of the cheque, the auditors refused to hand over the audited balance sheet for which the petitioner could not submit the annual return and the balance sheet before the Registrar of Companies in time. For non-submission of annual return and balance sheet in time, the petitioner was penalized. According to the petitioner, there was sufficient fund as per its own account on the date its cheque was dishonoured. On coming to know of the fact of dishonour of cheque, the petitioner issued letter dated 14.10.1999 to O.P.No.1 complaining about the negligence in honouring the cheque on the same date. O.P. No.1 vide its letter dated 14.10.1999, informed the petitioner that its cheque was rightly dishonoured as it had only Rs.6,530.89 in its bank account. Being dissatisfied with the said letter, the petitioner vide its letter dated 16.10.1999 informed O.P. Nos.1 and 2 that as per its record, balance should be Rs.11,555.89 and that the cheque has been willfully dishonoured by the Bank. On the basis of the statement of accounts obtained from O.P. No.1, petitioner again informed O.P. No.1 vide his letter dated 26.10.1999 that two debit entries were made in the petitioner's account being (a) funds insufficient Rs.5,000/-, and (b) Cheque returning charges Rs.25/- on 26.10.1999 which are incorrect. On 15.11.1999, O.P. No.1 finally admitted its erroneous act of debiting the account of the petitioner and apologized to the petitioner. On 15.11.1999, O.P. No.1 finally admitted its erroneous act of debiting the account of the petitioner and apologized to the petitioner. Since after admitting its erroneous act, O.P. No.1 did not credit the said amount of Rs.5,025/- to the petitioner's account which had been illegally and erroneously debited to its account, the petitioner filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opp. parties 1 and 2 for deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice. Before the Commission, opp. parties 1 and 2 took a stand that no illegality has been committed by the Bank in dishonouring the cheque of the petitioner as there was insufficient of funds in its account. So there was no deficiency in service. Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission a further stand was taken by O.P.-Bank that on 25.08.1999 the complainant had deposited a cheque for Rs.5,000/- and instant credit was given to A/c No. 1243. Thereafter, when the cheque returned back, debit entry was made and also Rs.25/- was deducted towards cheque clearing charges from A/c No. 1295. The learned State Commission dismissed the complaint with the following observation:- Heard the Learned counsel for the parties. It is evident from the reference letter No.AKM/786/99 dt. 15.11.1999 of O.P. Bank that a cheque for Rs.5000/- pertaining to complainant's account was erroneously debited. O.P. Bank regretted for such an erroneous act and for inconvenience caused to complainant. Since the Bank has already realized the mistake and expressed sincere regrets, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on its part. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this complaint. Dismissed. No order as to costs. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Account No. 1295 stands in the name of the petitioner-Company, i.e., National Institute of Computer Education Pvt. Ltd. and is operated by Mrs. Neeta Agarwal and Mr.Ramesh Agarwal as Directors of the said Company. But Account No. 1243 stands in the name of National Institute of Computer Education, which is a proprietorship concern. Both the concerns are separate legal entities in the eye of law and are having distinct account numbers. Therefore, it is erroneous and false to state that the petitioner, which is a private limited Company, maintains two current accounts. But Account No. 1243 stands in the name of National Institute of Computer Education, which is a proprietorship concern. Both the concerns are separate legal entities in the eye of law and are having distinct account numbers. Therefore, it is erroneous and false to state that the petitioner, which is a private limited Company, maintains two current accounts. The aforementioned facts will be evident from the Account opening forms wherefrom it has also been established that there was no agreement to link both the said Accounts. 4. Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for opp. parties 1 and 2 submitted that the complainant maintains two current accounts namely National Institute of Computer Education Pvt. Ltd. bearing account No. 1295 and National Institute of Computer Education (Proprietorship Account) bearing account No. 1243. A cheque amounting to Rs.5000/- was deposited in account No. 1243 on 25.08.1999 in which instant credit was given on that day. Later the said cheque of Rs.5000/- was bounced due to insufficiency of fund. Therefore, while giving debit entry in Account No. 1243, debit entry was made in Account No. 1295. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the bank in dishonouring the cheque as there was insufficient funds in the account and thus there is no deficiency in service. 5. It is not in dispute that on 13.10.1999 when the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- pertaining to current account No. 1295 maintained with opposite party-Bank his balance in the said bank account should be Rs.11,555.89. It is only because of the wrong committed by opposite party-bank, the said balance was reduced by Rs.5025/- for which the cheque for Rs. 10,000/- issued by the petitioner to Chartered Accountant was Indian Law Reports, Cuttack Series [2011] dishonoured on presentation. There is no denial to the above fact. In paragraph 9 of the their counter opposite party-Bank stated as follows : The petitioner has suppressed material facts before this Hon'ble Court. It was maintaining two current accounts in the opposite party bank in the name and style of National Institute of Computer Education bearing Account No. 1243 and another namely NICE National Institute of Computer Education Private Limited bearing Account No. 1295. A cheque amounting Rs.5000/- was deposited by the petitioner in Account No.1243 on 25.8.99 in which instant credit was given on the very day. A cheque amounting Rs.5000/- was deposited by the petitioner in Account No.1243 on 25.8.99 in which instant credit was given on the very day. The said cheque was however returned back with endorsement of insufficient fund and it was therefore necessary to debit the Account by Rs.5000/- and Rs.25/- towards collection charges. The debit entry of Rs.5025/- was made wrongly in Account No.1295 instead of Account No. 1243. Such inadvertent mistake was committed as the petitioner was maintaining both the accounts.... 6. From the above pleadings of opposite party-Bank, we are unable to accept the stand taken by the Bank that the petitioner M/s National Institute of Computer Education Private Ltd. maintaining current account No. 1295 and National Institute of Computer Education, which is a proprietorship concern, maintaining account no.1243 are one and the same entity. Since former is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the latter is a proprietorship concern, they are separate and distinct legal entities in the eye of law. We are shocked to note that a financial institution like opposite party -Bank, which is a nationalized Bank, does not understand the distinction between a limited Company and proprietorship concern though it has allotted two separate account numbers to them. On the one hand having admitted that the bank has committed mistake by making debit entry of Rs.5025/- wrongly in account no.1295 instead of account no.1243, the further stand of the bank that no illegality has been committed by the Bank in dishonouring the cheque in question as there was insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner Company and thus there is no deficiency in service runs contrary to the letter dated 15.11.1999 admitting its mistake and expressing regret for the same. 7. Needless to say that the good will of a business concern plays a pivotal role for its success. In other words, success of a business concern always depends on its good will in the market and in the eyes of customers and creditors. For any reason, if good will of a business concern tarnishes or its image goes down in the business circle, the business will certainly get a N.I.C. Education PVT. LTD. V. B.M. Dena Bank [B.N. Mahapatra, J] set back. Therefore, those who are responsible for sullying the public image of the business concern are required to compensate for the same. 8. LTD. V. B.M. Dena Bank [B.N. Mahapatra, J] set back. Therefore, those who are responsible for sullying the public image of the business concern are required to compensate for the same. 8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the cheque for Rs.10, 0007-drawn on opposite party bank on 13.10.1999 in favour of their auditor M/s. Tibrewal Chand & Co. towards their professional fees was dishonoured due to the erroneous act as stated above committed by opposite party-bank. Therefore, such action of opposite party-bank amounts to deficiency in service rendered by it for which the petitioner lost its reputation in the eye of drawee of the cheque. The petitioner's further case is that due to dishonour of the cheque, the auditor refused to hand over the audited balance sheet and the petitioner could not submit annual return and balance sheet before the Registrar of Companies in time for which the petitioner was penalized. 9. In the fact situation, the order dated 16.09.2010 passed under Annexure-5 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CD. Case No.91 of 2001 is hereby set aside. We direct opposite party-Bank to return back Rs.5,025/- wrongly debited to the account of the petitioner along with usual interest for the period from the date of wrong committed till the date of deposit in petitioner's Bank. Opposite party-Bank is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- within a fortnight from today to the petitioner for deficiency in service. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Final Result : Allowed