Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/601/2018

Panchayat Bhawan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Government Pleader

18 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	601 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	31.10.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	18.03.2019

 

 

 

 

 

Panchayat Bhawan Society duly registered with the Registrar of Societies, Chandigarh, through Smt. Sunita Devi, Joint Secretary-cum-Manager and duly authorised representative.     

 

             …………….Complainant

Versus

 

Canara Bank, SCO No.167-168, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

………. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         SMT. PRITI MALHOTRA       MEMBER

                    SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

           

 

For complainant:   Sh.Ashok Gautam, Govt. Pleader

For OP(s)     :    Ms.Deepika, Advocate

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

                    The case of the complainant precisely is that the complainant Society is maintaining Current Account bearing No.2451201000150 with OP Bank against which a cheque book has also been issued.  The complainant has authorised its Chief Executive Officer and Manager-cum-Joint Secretary-cum-Treasurer to act jointly to operate the said bank account with the OP Bank.  It is also averred that the complainant used to inform the names of concerned officials and provide their specimen signatures to the OP bank from time to time and in this process, vide letter dated 1.4.2016 (Ann.C4 & C-5) also informed the OP Bank that Sh.Jatender Yadav, IAS, as its Chief Executive Officer and Sh.Ram Achal Yadav jointly will operate the account.  The specimen signatures of both the said Officers were also provided to the Opposite Party. It is stated that complainant in order to withdraw money for running day-to-day course of affairs in the Office, sought approval and signatures of its Chief Executive Officer on Self Cheque No.603051, dated 1.11.2016 for Rs.29,646/- by sending the same to him in UT Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh, which was approved on 17.11.2016 (Ann.C-6).  It is also stated that on receiving the file back on 18.11.2016, the said cheque No.603051, dated 1.11.2016 for Rs.29,646/- was found missing and accordingly, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 18.11.2016 was requested to stop payment of cheque No.603051, dated 1.11.2016 for Rs.29,646/-, if so presented in bank (Ann.C-7 & C-8).  However, later on, while obtaining yearly Statement of Account from Opposite Party, it was noticed that the  missing cheque No.603051, dated 1.11.2016 for Rs.29,646/-, was cleared by the Opposite Party on 5.11.2016 (Ann.C-10).  It is submitted that the said cheque bears the signatures of Joint Secretary-cum-Treasurer of the complainant only but is not signed by the Chief Executive Officer though his rubber stamp was affixed on it, but still the Opposite Party cleared that cheque.  This matter was brought to the notice of Opposite Party as well as to Police Authority (Ann.C-12 to C-16), but to no avail.  It is also submitted that the cheque in question was got encashed by someone in connivance with the official of Opposite Party though it did not bears the signatures of both the signatories.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant itself is responsible for the loss of cheque in question as the said cheque was lost from its office.  It is stated that the complainant used to withdraw the amount through self-cheque from the current account maintained with Bank.  It is stated that the cheque was not missing from the file but the complainant itself prayed fraud with its own department and with the Opposite Party also by sending a single signature signed cheque and got encashed from Opposite Party.  It is also stated that the Opposite Party encashed the said cheque in good faith and in its routine work and without objecting to the credibility of person who presented the cheque on behalf of complainant for encashment.  It is denied that the complainant had given any instructions to stop payment of the disputed cheque. It is denied that the complainant got the knowledge about the encashment of lost cheque at the end of financial year 2016-17, rather the complainant got the said knowledge on 2.12.2016 when the complainant received the monthly statement of current account maintained with Bank.  It is submitted that it is routine duty of Opposite Party to provide monthly account statement of accounts maintained with Opposite Party. It is denied that the disputed cheque was encashed in connivance with the official of Opposite Party, as alleged.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions made in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Govt. Pleader for complainant, ld.Counsel for the OP and also carefully examined the entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainant, the Panchayat Bhawan Society has Current Account No.2451201000150 with Canara Bank Branch, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. The bank account was authorised to operate by joint signatures of Chief Executive Officer and Manager cum Joint Secretary. The Cheque No.603051 drawn on 1.11.2016 for draw of ₹29,646 was signed by Manager cum Joint Secretary but before signatures of Chief Executive Officer, it was presented in the bank on 05/11/2016 and the amount was withdrawn. The amount of ₹29,646 was disbursed by the bank without the signatures of both the authorised signatories for the said account. The opposite party, the Canara bank in its written statement had admitted to have encashed the disputed cheque in routine manner.

 

7]       The bank has fiduciary relationship with its account holders. The bank is a trustee of the assets/money deposited with it by the account holders. The bank has to strictly follow the instructions pertaining to operation of bank accounts as given by the account holders. The banks cannot deviate from the given instructions and cannot operate the bank accounts whimsically.

 

8]      After careful consideration of evidence on record, pleadings of the parties and arguments, it is found that the opposite party Canara Bank is guilty of breach of trust and ignoring all the instructions and guidelines has encashed the cheque which caused great financial loss to the complainant. The opposite party is found to be negligent and deficient in service.

 

9]      Keeping into consideration the complete facts, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, the consumer complaint is allowed against the opposite party with the direction to credit the amount of ₹29,646 in the current account No.2451201000150 of Panchayat Bhawan Society/Complainant within 10 days on receipt of copy of this order.

 

         The certified copy of this order be forwarded to parties, as per rules and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18^th March, 2019                                                            Sd/-

              (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER