RESERVED
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
Lucknow
Apeal No. 1279 of 2014
CMD, Punjab & Sindh Bank & Anr …….Appellant.
Versus
Amar Education Society ……Opposite Parties.
Present:-
- Hon’ble Sri Udai Shanker Awasthi , Presiding Member.
- Hon’ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.
Sri TJS Makkar,Advocate for the Appellants.
Sri Ram Gopal, Advocate for the Respondent.
Date: 30 -11-2016
Judgment
Mahesh Chand,Member This Appeal Under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been filed by C.M.D. Punjab & Sindh Bank and Another against the Judgment and order dated 21.4.2014 of District Consumer Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar, passed in the complaint case No 58 of 2013 Amar Education Society vs CMD Punjab & Sindh Bank & Another. In brief the facts of the dispute are that the complainant is having a bank account with the opposite party No 2, Punjab & Sindh Bank ,sector-18, Atta, Noida , District Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P. The complainant issued a cheque no 750323 dated 7.7.2012 for Rs 13,00,000/- drawn over the said branch of the opposite parties to Mr Mahendra Kandhari for the purchase of land. This cheque was presented for collection of the said amount through Vijaya Bank at Lucknow on 9.7.2012 but the same was returned dishonored by the payee bank on 9.7.2012 on the plea of signature not being tallied. The complainant issued another cheque no 750325 dated 23.8.2012 for Rs 800,000/- for purchase of other land but this cheque was also returned dishonored. The complainant took up this matter with the zonal office of the Punjab & Sindh Bank at Lucknow for this act of negligence at the end of the bank branch causing lot of harassment and damage to the prestige and reputation of the complainant. Not being satisfied with response from the bank, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Consumer Forum Gautam Budha Nagar claiming Rs200,000/- as damages. The opposite parties filed their written statement denying all the allegations of the complaint . The opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of suggestion-falsi and suppresio-veri. The opposite party in their objections have stated that since the signatures of the account holder did not match/tally with the specimen signature of the complainant-account holder hence the alleged cheques were dishonored and returned. The opposite party also stated in their objections that they had exercised due diligence and utmost care in verification of the genuineness of the alleged signatures on the said cheques hence there existed no cause of action to file the said complaint and prayed for its dismissal.
The learned District Forum after going through the pleadings of the parties and hearing their learned counsels passed the following order:
“Keeping in view the above statements, facts and evidences, this complaint case of the complainant against the opposite parties is partially allowed. We decide the compensation of Rs150,000/-(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) and legal expenses for the loss suffered due to deficiency in service on the part ofofficers and employees of Hazratganj, Lucknow branch of the opposite party No 1 in the month of July and September 2012. The opposite party no 1 is directed to pay this amount with in a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order. The opposite party No 1, if wishes so, then after making departmental enquiry, may recover itfrom the then responsible employees and manager, but by virtue of being their employer/ master, the opposite party No 1 will have to deposit this amount with in a period of 30 days after receiving the copy of this order. On this file, there appears no deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 2, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to receive any relief from the opposite party No 2 and the complainant’s complainant is dismissed against the opposite party No 2. The copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Let the file be consigned to the record room.”
Being aggrieved with this impugned order this Appeal has been filed. In the appeal the Appellants have taken the ground that the complainant is not the consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned District Forum has erred in not appreciating the fact that both the cheques were dishonored by the Appellant on the valid reasons of “ drawer signatures differ with the specimen on record” The leaned district forum has erred in concluding that the signatures on the cheques were exactly the same as the specimen signature available in the bank record, without obtaining opinion from any hand writing experts. According to the appellants the learned District Forum also erred in holding that one of the disputed cheque was counter signed by the opposite party no 2 while actually it were signatures of the payee which were verified and not the drawer’s signatures. There was no malice in the act of appellants. The award of damages of Rs150,000/- and costs of Rs 5000/- by learned District Forum is irrational and improper. The appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with costs.
We have gone through the record available on file and heard the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties. We find that it is admitted that the Complainant-Respondent is having a bank account with the opposite party No2. The complainant – respondent issued the said cheque no 750323 dated 7.7.2012 of Rs 13,00,000/- and cheque no 750325 dated 23.8.2012 Rs 8,00,000/- in favour of Mr Mahendra Kandhari for purchase of land. The cheques were presented by the payee for collection through Vijay Bank at Lucknow. It is also admitted for both the parties that both the cheques were returned dishonored on the ground that the signatures of the drawer differed with specimen signatures in the bank record. The bank account had the sufficient balance. The learned District Forum has observed that they have seen the signatures of the drawer on the Photostat copy of the cheque and the Photostat copy of the attested specimen copy of the signatures and found in their observation as tallied. The learned counsel for the Appellant has disputed the competence of the learned District Forum in tallying the two samples of signatures as they are not supposed to be the handwriting /signature experts. The learned district forum have observed that the employees and manager have negligently and carelessly and casually dishonored both the cheques of the complainant which is evidently deficiency in service on their part. Now the question arises whether the referred cheques were dishonored due to carelessness of the bank employees or the after making due diligence, they found that the signatures of the drawer on the cheques did not tally with the specimen signatures in the bank record.
In the instant case, the prima facie observation of the learned District Forum that the signatures of the drawer on the cheques tallies with the specimen signatures cannot be ignored as the drawer of the cheque-complainant himself is saying that the disputed signatures are his signatures. In such case when the signing person is owning the signatures on the cheque then there was no need to call for a report of the signature expert or handwriting expert. In case the signatures are not tallying repeatedly, the bank’s passing officer ought to have called the drawer to sign in person or verify with the drawer by talking to him or her on phone whether he or she has issued the cheques. In the instant case the learned district forum did not commit any error in observing that prima facie the signatures do tally with the specimen signatures in the bank records. The Appellant-bank officials committed carelessness in dishonoring the cheques in a routine manner and dented the reputation of the account holder. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that since there was no financial loss to the complainant account holder, the compensation awarded by the learned district forum is too high and prayed for its reconsideration and being rational. Keeping in view the circumstances we find that the compensation awarded is unreasonably very high. We agree to the reduce the compensation from Rs 150,000/- to Rs 15000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant-respondent. Thus the impugned order is liable to be modified accordingly.
Order
The appeal is partially allowed. The impugned order dated 17.1.2012 is modified with the direction to the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs 15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant-respondent within a period of one months from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled to get a simple interest @ 12% per annum on this amount from the date of filing the complaint to the date of actual payment. The parties will be bear their own costs.
(Udai Shanker Awasthi) (Mahesh Chand)
Presiding Member Member
S.k. st. c-5
