BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint No.4 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Instt. 01.01.2018

                                                                   Date of Decision: 16.02.2021

1.       Smt. Monica Marwaha W/o Sh. Brij Bhushan Marwaha,

2.       Sh. Brij Bhushan Marwaha S/o Sh. Kasturi Lal Marwaha,

          Both R/o 99-A, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar-144001. Mobile No.9876051039.

                                                                             ..........Complainants

Versus

1.       Axis Bank Ltd. through its Chairman/MD, Regd.-cum-Corporate Office: Axis House, C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, WORLI, Mumbai-400025.

2.       Axis Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Main Branch, SCO 30-31, PUDA Complex, Opposite Tehsil Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar-144001.                                                         

                ….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Kuljit Singh              (President)

                              Smt. Jyotsna                    (Member)

 Present:        Sh. Arun K. Walia, Adv Counsel for the Complainants.

                              Sh. Sukrant Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

                             Jyotsna (Member)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein alleged that the OPs are providing banking service to the general public for consideration. The complainants having a joint Account No.155010100000772 with the OP No.2. The Complainant No.2 issued a cheque bearing No.072735 dated 12.08.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of M/s LSC SECURITIES LTD on account of Marwaha Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. out of the above mentioned account. Upon the presentation of the above said cheque of the complainant No.2, received a call from OP No.2 and complainant No.2 confirmed about the issuance of the above said cheque and asked to clear/pay it.

2.             That on the presentation of the above said cheque for encashment by the said M/s LSC SECURITIES LTD through its Bankers and on 16.08.2017, the same was dishonored by returning the same by the OP No.2 for the reason ’12-Drawers Signature differs’. There is no difference of the signature of the complainant No.2 on the above mentioned cheque and the specimen signature with the OP No.2. The complainants have already completed all the formalities with regard to the above said account with the OPs. Due to the above mentioned facts, the complainants suffered mental tension, harassment, defame in the society, loss of reputation, financial loss etc. and the complainants assessed the same to the tune of Rs.4,99,000/- in all in terms of money. Due to the above mentioned facts, there is a deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the OPs, which gave rise to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.4,99,000/- in all in terms of money to the complainants and as compensation for mental tension, harassment, defame in the society, loss of reputation, financial loss etc., caused due to the above said deficiency, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs with regards to return of the above said cheques.

3.              Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed by the complainant just to harass the answering OPs. It is further alleged that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the answering OPs to file the present complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum and further alleged that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. It is further alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the OPs are providing banking service to the general public for consideration and the dishonoring of the cheque is also admitted with remarks Drawers Signature Differs, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.             In order to prove his case, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

5.              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith document Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.               It is admitted fact that the complainant had issued a Cheque bearing No.072735 dated 12.08.2017 for Rs.1,00,000 in favour of M/s LSC Securities Ltd. The cheque was dishonoured by the OPs for the reason 12-Drawer Signature Differs. The OPs had contested that the cheque was returned since the signature of the complainant had differed with the signature available in this bank record. However, the complainant had submitted that there is no difference of the signature of the complainant on the above mentioned cheque and the specimen signature with the OPs. To settle the issues the complainant had filed an application on 04.04.2018 to direct the OPs to produce the specimen signature of the complainant No.2 for comparison purpose and in the interest of justice. On this application, the Commission had ordered on 08.08.2018 that specimen signature lying with the bank were very much necessary for the comparison purpose, but it is not necessary to summon the said specimen signature in the Commission rather the applicant/complainant was allowed to get compared the disputed signature of the complainant No.2 with the signature lying with the bank, from any handwriting expert. On 13.11.2018 counsel for the complainant filed an application for production of original specimen signature card, copy of the same was supplied to the OP, but instead of filing reply of the said application, counsel for the OP produced a document i.e. certificate signed by Bank Official, wherein category mentioned that the original specimen signature of the complainant is not available in the bank, therefore, OP was debarred to produce the said document in its evidence on 12.06.2019 by this Forum. Since the OPs failed to produce the original specimen signature for verification, as such, the complainants are entitled for the relief as claimed.

8.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                     Jyotsna                                Kuljit Singh

16.02.2021                                   Member                              President