DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA<br /> CC.No.170 of 12-04-2010<br /> Decided on 06-08-2010<br /> Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Ward No.6, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ......Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> 2. State Bank of India, through its Assistant General manager, Zonal Office, Bathinda.<br /> .......Opposite parties<br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> Present:-<br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Rakesh Kumar, complainant in person.<br /> For Opposite parties : Sh.Naveen Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding Saving Bank A/c No.113117227977 in State Bank of India, Branch Maur Mandi which is connected with his D-Mat account and he is operating this account from long back. The Bank has also issued cheque book regarding this. On 27.05.2008, the complainant wanted to get attested his signatures from Sh.N.K.Gupta, Branch Manager. Due to non attesting his signatures in time, he was unable to D-Mat his shares in the share market because of that he faced big financial loss. The complainant has also reported the matter to the higher authorities but they have also ignored this. The complainant has sent many letters but the officials of the opposite party said that he should give his new signatures and will attest those signatures but the complainant said that he wanted to get attested his signatures which are in the record of the Bank. He is doing all the transactions through cheuqes. So, he has filed the present complaint that on account of non-attesting his signatures he has suffered a huge financial loss and he has prayed for Rs.20 lacs as compensation.<br /> 2. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant is an old account holder and with the passage of time, some difference between signatures is normal thing and if the signatures were not tallying and the Bank by writing letters dated 04.09.2008 and 25.11.2008 has requested the complainant to provide the Bank his latest signatures to avoid any inconvenience in future but inspite of that the complainant did not provide his latest standard signatures. As such there were difference between the signatures of the complainant available with the Bank as well as on the signatures put forward for attesting his signatures on the application and as such the Bank has refused to attest the said signatures as the same were not tallying with the signatures of the complainant available with the Bank.<br /> 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> 4. Arguments heard. Record perused.<br /> 5. The complainant requested the opposite parties for attestation of his signatures. He alleged that the opposite parties have failed to attest his signatures due to which he has lost his business which was related to D-Mat/ share market. The opposite parties pleaded in para No.2 of written reply that the complainant is an old account holder and with the passage of time, some difference has come between signatures of today and that time signatures. The opposite parties requested the complainant to provide the latest signatures to avoid any inconvenience in future but the complainant did not provide his latest standard signatures and signatures which are available with the Bank signatures which are forwarded for attesting his signatures on application. These signatures were not tallying with signatures which were available with the Bank already. The complainant has lodged the complaint regarding this to the office of Banking Ombudsman where it seems to have demanded a huge amount of compensation which does not fall under pecuniary jurisdiction of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 due to his unusual huge demand of amount of compensation. The Bank has refused to persue his complaint vide Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. <br /> 6. A perusal Ex.R-4 shows that the allegations made by the complainant that his request was not entertained is false. He visited the Bank Branch to get his signatures attested on UTI claim form on 22.05.2008. Since the signatures on the claim form differ, the same were not authenticated by the branch. However he has been asked by the branch officials to provide fresh signatures and photograph to update the records which he has refused and they have further asked him to again visit and requested him to provide fresh specimen signatures and photograph to avoid such eventuality in future and to provide him better customer service and seek his cooperation in this regard but the attitude of the complainant was not co-operative.<br /> A perusal of Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-9 are the letters written by the complainant to the different Bank Authorities. The signatures of all these letters did not tally with each other. This shows that the conduct of man that he is misleading the Bank authorities. Therefore we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.<br /> 7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> 06.08.2010 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member<br /> <br />