Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/188

Babu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kumar jindal

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         188

Date of Institution :   8.07.2016

Date of Decision :      10.01.2017

Babu Ram Bansal, aged about 64 years s/o late Sh Siri Ram Bansal, r/o H. No. B-I/238, Main Raod, Street No. 2/3, Left, Hira Singh Nagar, Kotkapura.                    

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Bank of India through its Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Surya Kiran Complex, 1^st Floor, Phase-II, the Mall, Near Rakh Bagh, Ludhiana.

2. Manager Bank of India, Faridkot Branch.

3. Manager, Bank of India, Kotkapura Branch.

   ......OPs

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh S K Jindal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

    Sh Ravinder Goyal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

    

   (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.133/-, Rs.19.85 and Rs.75/-paid by complainant to OPs and to pay Rs.50,000/-which he had to pay due to dishonouring of cheque by OPs and Rs. 2 lacs as punitive measure to OPs and Rs.18,000/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

   2                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having a saving account with OPs and on 31.05.2016, he issued  an account payee cheque bearing no.000128 in favour of Sh Jagdish Kumar Jindal for Rs.4,00,000/-. Said cheque was payable at all branches of Bank of India in clearing and Sh Jagdish Jindal presented the said cheque for payment to Faridkot Branch of Bank of India through his Banker, State Bank of Patiala, (Mini Secretariat) Branch, Faridkot on 1.06.2016. It is further submitted that said cheque bore two more signatures alongwith one at the usual place and all his signatures tallied with the signatures, which are in the record of OPs and complainant has drawn money from said bank with same signatures, but this time, OP-2 dishonoured the cheque of complainant on the plea that ‘Drawer’s Signature Differs’ though it never differed with those, which are recorded signatures of complainant. The action of OP-2 in dishonouring the cheque of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of them. It is further submitted that complainant had to pay Rs.50,000/-in addition to Sh Jagdish Kumar Jindal as damages alongwith original amount of Rs.4 lacs. Moreover, OP-2 and 3 deducted Rs.133/-alongwith service tax of Rs.19.25 from his account for return of said cheque unpaid and OP-3 also deducted Rs.75/-for issuing a Signature Verification Certificate and as per knowledge of complainant, no such charges are required to be deducted by OPs from complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses along with main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                         Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.07.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

   4                        On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement          taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is not maintainable and it has filed only to extract money from the bank at the instance of Jagdish Jindal, who is brother in law of complainant and it has no cause of action against the OPs. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect. But Ops admitted before the Forum that complainant is having saving account with them at Kotkapura branch and impugned cheque was issued by him in favour of said Jagdish Jindal. It is averred that said cheque was received at Bank of India, Faridkot Branch through inward clearing on 1.06.2016 and dealing officer had to pass the same after verifying the signatures displayed on the system.  Since bank adopts core banking solution, the signature of the customer is scanned at parent branch and same can be viewed from another branch of bank for carrying out transactions in the account and in the present case, the signatures of complainant available with bank record when displayed on the system, did not tally with the actual signatures appearing on the cheque and thus, to protect the money of complainant and to avert  any fraud, the Bank Officer returned the same with remarks ‘Signature Differs’. The complaint filed by complainant is an afterthought as complainant visited Kotkapura Branch of OPs on 4.06.2016 and got verified his signatures by signing in the presence of employee of bank on pretext to submit the same with LIC. Complainant deliberately did not ask the Bank Officer of Kotkapura Branch to get his specimen signature verified, rather he got the signature attested by Bank Officer of Kotkapura Branch on that date. It is further averred that since, complainant was the customer of Kotkapura Branch and might be known to concerned officer, who attested his signatures without knowing that complainant is planning to file a complaint case against the Bank. It is further averred that complainant had  not withdrawn the money from Faridkot Branch with the disputed signatures as alleged by him. Ld counsel for OPs asserted that signature of complainant on the usual place of cheque did not tally with the specimen signature available in the record of OP-1 and therefore, his cheque was rightly returned  un-enchased. All the other allegations are a result of afterthought and are concocted only to extract undue advantage from OPs. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

   5                                   Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-17 and then, closed his evidence.

   6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Jatinder Kumar, Chief Manager as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 4 and then, closed the evidence.

   7                               Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having a saving account with OPs and on 31.05.2016, he issued  an account payee cheque in favour of Sh Jagdish Kumar Jindal for Rs.4,00,000/-. Said cheque was payable at all branches of Bank of India and Sh Jagdish Jindal presented the said cheque for payment to Faridkot Branch of Bank of India through his Banker, State Bank of Patiala, (Mini Secretariat) Branch, Faridkot on 1.06.2016. It is further submitted that said cheque bore two more signatures alongwith one at the usual place and all his signatures tallied with the signatures, which are in the record of OPs and complainant has drawn money from said bank with same signatures, but this time, OP-2 dishonoured the said cheque of complainant on the plea that ‘Drawer’s Signature Differs’ though it never differed with those, which are recorded signatures of complainant. The action of OP-2 in dishonouring the cheque of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of them. It is further submitted that complainant had to pay Rs.50,000/-in addition to Sh Jagdish Kumar Jindal as damages alongwith original amount of Rs.4 lacs. Moreover, OP-2 and 3 deducted Rs.133/-alongwith service tax of Rs.19.25 from his account for return of said cheque unpaid and OP-3 also deducted Rs.75/-for issuing a Signature Verification Certificate, whereas, no such charges are required to be deducted. All this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and has caused financial loss and harassment to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

   8                                       To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OP argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. OPs argued that said cheque was received at Bank of India, Faridkot Branch through inward clearing on 1.06.2016 and dealing officer had to pass the same after verifying the signatures displayed on the system.  Since bank adopts core banking solution, the signature of the customer is scanned at parent branch and same can be viewed from another branch of bank for carrying out transactions in the account. It is further averred that and in the present case, the signatures of complainant available with bank record when displayed on the system, did not tally with the actual signatures appearing on the cheque and thus, to protect the money of complainant and to avert  any fraud, the Bank Officer returned the same with remarks ‘Signature Differs’. The complaint filed by complainant is an afterthought as complainant visited Kotkapura Branch of OPs on 4.06.2016 and got verified his signatures by signing in the presence of employee of bank on pretext to submit the same with LIC. Complainant deliberately did not ask the Bank Officer of Kotkapura Branch to get his specimen signature verified, rather he got the signature attested by Bank Officer of Kotkapura Branch on that date. It is further averred that since, complainant was the customer of Kotkapura Branch and might be known to concerned officer, who attested his signatures without knowing that complainant is planning to file a complaint case against the Bank. It is further averred that complainant had  not withdrawn the money from Faridkot Branch with the disputed signatures as alleged by him. Ld counsel for OPs asserted that signature of complainant on the usual place of cheque did not tally with the specimen signature available in the record of OP-1 and therefore, his cheque was rightly returned  un-enchased. All the other allegations are a result of after thought and are concocted only to extract undue advantage from OPs. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

   9                            We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

   10                       The case of complainant is that he is an account holder with OPs and he issued an account payee cheque, which was dishonoured by OPs on the ground that signature on cheque did not tally with those signature which are in their record. Main contention of complainant is that OPs intentionally dishonoured the cheque of complainant and he had to suffer damages due to this act of OPs. On the other hand, plea taken by OPs is that they have rightly dishonoured the cheque of complainant as signature of complainant did not tally with the signature of complainant available in their record and they have dishonoured the cheque only to safe guard his money and to prevent any untoward happening like fraud being committed upon him, but complainant has filed the present complaint as an afterthought only to extract undue advantage from them and to harass them. On the contrary, ld counsel for complainant contended that as signature appended by complainant were same as that of his previous signatures and he has withdrawn money several times from his account with same manner of signatures as he has never changed the way of doing his signature and OPs have deliberately dishonoured his cheque. To prove his case, complainant has produced on record, Signature Verification Certificate, issued by OPs themselves as Ex C-13, original of cheque issued by them as Ex C-14, cheque returning memo Ex C-15, legal notice showing grievance of complainant and receipts Ex C-5 and 7. Complainant has also relied upon receipt Ex C-16, by which he alleged that he had to pay Rs.50,000/-to Sh Jagdish Kumar Jindal  as damages due to dishonouring  of his cheque by OPs.

   11                      We have carefully gone through the case and from the perusal of evidence produced by complainant, it is observed that all these documents produced on record by complainant are sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings. In the light of documents Ex C-13, which is Signature Verification Certificate issued by Ops themselves to complainant, original cheque Ex C-14 and account opening form Ex C-8, there remains no iota of doubt that signature of complainant, which appears on cheque tally with those signatures which are available with OPs in their record because on the face of this document, it is  clear that  there is no difference in the previous and present signatures of complainant and OPs have themselves admitted the same by issuing a Signature Verification Certificate to him. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to take proper caution and care before dishonouring a cheque having sufficient balance. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

   Announced in open Forum:

   Dated: 10.01.2017

   Member                          President                        (P  Singla)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)