Haryana

Sonipat

CC/480/2016

jaiwanti - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Anjana

16 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.480 of 2016                                              Instituted on:06.12.2016

                                Date of order:16.03.2017

 

Jaiwanti wife of Sant Ram, residentof Butana  Khetlan, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.Axis Bank Mehmudpur Branch, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat through its Manager.

2.Sandeep Kumar Manager, Axis Bank Mehmudpur Branch, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

3.Axis Bank Main Branch, Property no.908-A 14 old DC road, Nandwani Nagar, Sonepat through its Manager.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. RP Mor  Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she is having saving bank account with respondent no.1 since 20.8.2015. On 10.5.2016 the complainant issued cheque no.020959 for Rs.one lac only to Kapil Kumar Manager of the petrol pump of my relative namely Mandeep Filling Station, Jind road, Gohana.  The said cheque of Rs.one lac was to be encashed form the respondent bank from the complainant’s account and was to be deposited with oil company for supply of oil etc. But on 12.5.2016 the respondent no.2 made a payment of Rs.7 lacs from the compalinant’s account against the cheque of Rs.one lac to Kapil Kumar.  The amount of Rs.one lac was tampered and altered into Rs.7 lacs.  In the 4^th week of May 2016 this fact came to the knowledge of the respondent.  On perusal of the instrument, the letter digit ‘1’ was found changed into ‘7’ and the word one lac was tampered and re-written in different hand and in different ink into seven lacs.  There is a clear cut violation of the instructions of the RBI by which the respondents are bound to follow and comply with the RBI instructions according to which no tampered cheque can be accepted for payment in any manner.  The complainant has not given any cheque for Rs.7 lacs to Kapil Kumar.  The alteration and cutting changing Rs.one lac to rs.7 lacs is an illegal act and the respondent bank in a negligent manner has accepted the same and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that as per bank’s record, the cheque in question was issued on 7.5.2016 for an amount of Rs.7 lacs and the same was presented on 12.5.2016 for encashment by Kapil Kumar Manager Mandeep Filling Station, Jind road, Gohana.  When the cheque bearer Kapil Kumar deposited the cheque to the bank for encashment, on suspension of the cheque the Cashier as well as Branch Manager denied to clear this cheque, but when Kapil Kumar told the Branch Manager that he had to make payment of petrol tanker on urgent basis and this was the last cheque which was carrying by him and he said to the Manager to cross verify the cheque from Smt. Jaiwanti (account holder) and her real son Sonu.  The cashier dial the phone number of Smt. Jai Wanti and Sonu, but the phone was not picked up.  Thereafter the Branch Manager conveyed the whole matter to Sonu son of Jaiwanti through what’s app. Message, then Sonu confirmed the authenticity of cheque and made a request to clear the said cheque of Rs.7 lacs only.  Thereafter the cashier handed over an amount of Rs.7 lacs to Kapil Kumar and he has duly accepted the said payment . The said cheque was issued by Smt. Jaiwanti willfully and the payment of cheque of Rs.7 lacs is well within the knowledge of the complainant and her son Sonu.  The respondent bank has made the payment of the cheque after duly verify and confirmed the authenticity of the cheque. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and respondent no.2 at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is having saving bank account with respondent no.1 since 20.8.2015. On 10.5.2016 the complainant issued cheque no.020959 for Rs.one lac only to Kapil Kumar Manager of the petrol pump of my relative namely Mandeep Filling Station, Jind road, Gohana.  The said cheque of Rs.one lac was to be encashed form the respondent bank from the complainant’s account and was to be deposited with oil company for supply of oil etc. But on 12.5.2016 the respondent no.2 made a payment of Rs.7 lacs from the compalinant’s account against the cheque of Rs.one lac to Kapil Kumar.  The amount of Rs.one lac was tampered and altered into Rs.7 lacs.  In the 4^th week of May 2016 this fact came to the knowledge of the respondent.  On perusal of the instrument, the letter digit ‘1’ was found changed into ‘7’ and the word one lac was tampered and re-written in different hand and in different ink into seven lacs.  There is a clear cut violation of the instructions of the RBI by which the respondents are bound to follow and comply with the RBI instructions according to which no tampered cheque can be accepted for payment in any manner.  The complainant has not given any cheque for Rs.7 lacs to Kapil Kumar.  The alteration and cutting changing Rs.one lac to rs.7 lacs is an illegal act and the respondent bank in a negligent manner has accepted the same and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per bank’s record, the cheque in question was issued on 7.5.2016 for an amount of Rs.7 lacs and the same was presented on 12.5.2016 for encashment by Kapil Kumar Manager Mandeep Filling Station, Jind road, Gohana.  When the cheque bearer Kapil Kumar deposited the cheque to the bank for encashment, on suspension of the cheque the Cashier as well as Branch Manager denied to clear this cheque, but when Kapil Kumar told the Branch Manager that he had to make payment of petrol tanker on urgent basis and this was the last cheque which was carrying by him and he said to the Manager to cross verify the cheque from Smt. Jaiwanti (account holder) and her real son Sonu.  The cashier dial the phone number of Smt. Jai Wanti and Sonu, but the phone was not picked up.  Thereafter the Branch Manager conveyed the whole matter to Sonu son of Jaiwanti through what’s app. Message, then Sonu confirmed the authenticity of cheque and made a request to clear the said cheque of Rs.7 lacs only.  Thereafter the cashier handed over an amount of Rs.7 lacs to Kapil Kumar and he has duly accepted the said payment . The said cheque was issued by Smt. Jaiwanti willfully and the payment of cheque of Rs.7 lacs is well within the knowledge of the complainant and her son Sonu.  The respondent bank has made the payment of the cheque after duly verify and confirmed the authenticity of the cheque. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          During the pendency of the present complaint on 19.1.2017 ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed an application for directing the respondents to produce the cheque no.020959 which is in dispute.

          At the time of arguments, the original cheque in dispute was produced before this Forum, which was seen & returned to Sandeep Kumar Manager Axis Bank Branch Gohana.

          At the time of arguments, it was also contended by ld. Counsel for the complainant that FIR was registered regarding the instance  and an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- were recovered from the culprit.  But neither the complainant nor the respondent has placed any document in this regard.

          From the documents available on the case file and from the perusal of the original cheque in question, it is established that fraud has been committed with the complainant by making tampering/alteration with the amount actually mentioned, due to which, Rs.seven lakhs were withdrawn instead of Rs.one lakh.  But this Forum  is unable to decide the allegations of fraud under summary proceedings, because for deciding the same, an elaborate, cogent and convincing evidence is required, which can only be led by both the parties before the civil court.  Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court of jurisdiction for redressal of her grievances, if she is advised or desire so.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 16.03.2017