Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he is bonafide customer of the opponent/Bank. He has opened savings bank account alongwith his wife with the opponent/Bank. He has planned to avail housing loan facility from financial institute and therefore he issued cheque bearing No.958237 in favour of G.I.C. Housing Finance dated 4th February, 2012 for Rs.2500/- towards the processing fee. He was surprised to learn from the entry in the pass book dated 10th March, 2012 that opponent/Bank had debited Rs.12500/- to honour the cheque presented to clearing house. The said cheque was altered in the name of one Mr.Mukesh Sharma in place of G.I.C.Housing Finance. The amount Rs.2500/- was altered to Rs.12500/-. There was cancellation of original payee name and addition of other name Mr.Mukesh Sharma. There was alteration in the amount in figure as well as in words and it was not authenticated by signature. The Bank has honoured the forged and altered cheque thereby the complainant suffered loss of amount and mental agony. Therefore, he has filed this complaint to direct the opponent/Bank to credit Rs.12,500/- in the account of complainant and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental torture and harassment and also to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost.
2) The opponent/Bank appeared and filed written statement. According to the opponent, the complaint is filed without cause of action. The complainant has not given details of action taken by him against the said person. The opponent had taken up the matter with the Bank of India for recovery of cheque amount. The opponent lodged complaint with M.R.A. Marg Police Station. According to the opponent, the cheque does not come physically to the branch. It goes to the centralized clearing system. Alteration in the word and figure is not conspicuously visible and the cheque was in order therefore it was honoured. The complainant had not disclosed the name of person to whom the cheque was handed over. The complainant had not filed the complaint against the said person. As the cheque was in order, payment was made. Therefore, the opponent is not liable to pay compensation.
3) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether the cheque was in order ? | No |
2) | Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.12500/- ? | Yes |
3) | Whether the opponent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- for mental torture and harassment ? | Rs.10000/- only |
4) | Whether the opponent is liable to pay cost of this proceeding ? | Rs.5000/- only |
5) | What Order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
4) As to Point No.1 to 5 :- There is no dispute that complainant is the ‘customer’ of the opponent/Bank and he issued cheque dated 4th February, 2012. It is also not disputed that original cheque was issued in the name of G.I.C. Housing Finance. It is apparent that the name G.I.C.Housing Finance Limited is altered to Mr.Mukesh Sharma. According to the complainant, he issued cheuqe for Rs.2500/- only. On perusal of copy of cheque on record, it is seen even by naked eyes that the word ‘Two’ is altered to ‘Twelve’. It is also apparent that the figure ‘1’ is inserted before the figure 2500. According to the opponent/Bank, the cheque was in order and therefore it was honoured. The Bank Officer is expected atleast to be ordinary prudent man. If the cheque is seen, even layman can say that there is alteration in the word ‘Two’ converting it to ‘Twelve’. Even though figure ‘1’ is inserted before the figure 2500. When the layman can see it then the Bank Officer who is trustee of the public money expected to see the alteration in the cheque. Public use to keep their amount in the Bank as custodian. The bank officials are the trustees of the public money therefore it is necessary for the bank officials to take utmost care while making payment to other party. As stated above, the name of drawee is altered. The amount in word and figure is also altered. There is signature by way of authentication only on the altered name G.I.C. There is no signature on the altered figure and word. The bank officials should have noted it and refused the payment.
5) Instead of correcting the mistake of the concern bank official, the opponent/Bank has harassed the complainant by refusing the payment by taking irrelevant defence. The Bank has no concern to whom the cheque was handed over and the purpose of it. It was the Bank’s responsibility to make payment if the cheque is found in order. There were alteration in the name of drawee as well as in the amount still the bank officials honoured the cheque negligently. Therefore, the opponent/Bank is liable to refund the amount to the complainant with interest.
6) The complainant has requested to refund his amount but the opponent/ Bank refused. The payment was made on 13th March, 2012. The Bank failed to refund the amount till today to the complainant. The Bank has taken irrelevant defence and thereby unnecessarily harassed the complainant therefore the Bank is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-. We think compensation of Rs.10,000/- will suffice the purpose. Besides this, the opponent/Bank is liable to pay cost of this proceeding Rs.5,000/-.
7) Thus, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.12,500/- with interest from 13th March, 2012. The opponent/Bank is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of proceeding Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Hence, the following order.
O R D E R
1) Complaint is partly allowed.
2) The opponent/Bank is directed to pay Rs.12,500/- (Rs.Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Only) with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 13th March, 2012 till realization to the complainant within one month.
3) The opponent/Bank is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) and cost of the proceeding Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant, within one month.
4) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced
Dated 20th September, 2013
