PER:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section  12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant M/s Ganesh Textile Mills is a proprietorship concern and Sh. Mehesh Jhawar is its proprietor and he is over all incharge of the entire business activities and day to day act and conduct of his proprietorship concern. The complainant is having a bank account with the opposite party No. 1 bank branch bearing account No. 0660050028365 and the complainant is operating the said bank account for his livelihood. The complainant is a regular customer of the opposite party bank branch and is consumer of opposite party. The complainant deposited four cheques in the bank branch of opposite party No. 1 given by various parties / customers of the complainant on 29.3.2015 and one of the said cheque issued by M/s Jay Veer Aar Shawls drawn on United Branch of India for Rs. 27,499/- was neither encashed nor returned to the complainant, therefore, the complainant enquired the entire matter and he came to know that as per version of opposite party on the midnight of 29-30/3/2015, there is theft in the box of opposite party bank branch in which cheques were presented and the bank has lodged FIR in this regard and the said cheque was also stolen by somebody along with other cheques. Thereafter the compliant enquired from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and in the mid of April 2015 the complainant came to know that stolen cheque was passed by one Rajesh Harilal Parmar i.e. opposite party No. 3 and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have provided the copy of said cheque image from the computer and from the face of same it clearly evident that there is column of pay to has been changed in the said cheuqe from Ganesh Textiles to Rajesh Harilal Parmar and the said cutting is duly authenticated. Thereafter the complainant regularly approached the opposite parties No.  1 and 2 with the request to give the detail about the status of above said cheuqe but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The complainant made his best efforts to know about the status of his cheque but opposite parties did not give any response to it rather openly declare that the cheque has been stolen from the bank branch and the same is not traced out inspite of efforts made by the officials of opposite party bank. As per guidelines of reserve Bank of India, it is duty of bank to provide facility for acknowledgement of cheques at regular collection counters should be available to the customers and no branch should refuse to give an acknowledgement if the customer tender the cheques at the counters. The banks should ensure that the customers are not compelled to drop the cheques in the drop box. Further in the contents of customer awareness in this regard bank should invariably display on the cheque drop box itself that customer can also tender the cheque at the counter and obtain acknowledgement on the pay-in-slips. The above message is required to be displayed in English, Hindi and the concerned regional language of the State. the complainant also sent a legal notice dated 13.2.2017 to the opposite party but the opposite party has failed to comply with the said legal notice and even did not bother to give any reply to the said legal notice which itself has reflected the act and conduct of opposite party. In view of the above said facts and circumstances. It is evident that there is great deficiency in service, unfair trade practice  and negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  the complainant has prayed that necessary directions be issued to the opposite parties to credit the said cheque amount of Rs. 27499/- in the account of complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 25000/- to the complainant besides costs of litigation. 

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is false and frivolous which is reflected in the narration of the complaint. The complainant has only once mentioned that complainant deposited four cheques for collection, no details of the cheques lost has been placed on record. On the same space  he has mentioned that one cheque has been debited which was issued by M/s Jay Veer Aar Shawls drawn on United Bank of India for Rs. 27499/-.  In rest of all the Paras there is reference to only one cheque as mentioned in this complaint, which has been presented. This clearly shows that there was only single cheque for Rs. 27499/-. The complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties. The main case revolve around the United Bank of India, who has made the payment of cheque for Rs. 27499 as alleged by the complainant, the column of pay to has been changed from M/s Ganesh Textiles to Rajesh Harilal Parmar and the said cutting has been duly authenticated, as admitted by the complainant. The statement made by the complainant is self contradictory, if the cutting in the name of payee is duly authenticated it cannot be a forged cheque. Keeping in view the detailed facts, the United Bank of India who has made the payment of the cheque in question is necessary and proper party, the party M/s Jay Vee Aar Shawls who is drawer of cheque and forged name of payee M/s Rajesh Harilal Parmar being the  forged name of payees is also a necessary party. The complainant also alleged that the cheque has been forged and the name of the payee has been changed from M/s Ganesh Textiles to M/s Rajesh Harilal Parmar. The allegation of fraud and forgery cannot be decided under summary procedure. The opposite party No. 1 has already filed FIR with the Police Station concerned for the loss of the stolen cheques and the matter is under investigation. the cases concerning forged/ forgery are not to be decided by this commission because these cases require voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary and further more cross examination of witnesses is also required at length which is not possible under summary procedure. The complainant has neither deposited the receipt of cheques , name of drawer, name of payee nor the amount of the cheques deposited has been mentioned. As no information was provided by the complainant to opposite party No. 1, as such specific action/ against the payment of these cheques could not be taken for stopping the payment. Had the complainant provided the details of cheques to the opposite party No. 1, the loss could have been averted. There is no opposite party No. 3 in the title of the complaint, how Rajesh Harilal Parmar could have passed the stolen cheque. Account No. 0660050028365 does not belong to the complainant, rather no such account exists in the branch.  The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        To prove the case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of Manesh Kumar Jhawa Proprietor of M/s Ganesh Textile Mills, 112, R.K. Goenka Marketm, Moti Bazar Amritsar Ex. C-1 along with documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-11. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Narayan Dhir Branch Manger Ex. OP1,2/1, copy of account opening form Ex. OP1,2/2, copy of account statement Ex. OP1, 2/3, copy of FIR Ex. OP1, 2/4 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant M/s Ganesh Textile Mills is a proprietorship concern and Sh. Mehesh Jhawar is its proprietor and he is over all incharge of the entire business activities and day to day act and conduct of his proprietorship concern. The complainant is having a bank account with the opposite party No. 1 bank branch bearing account No. 0660050028365 and the complainant is operating the said bank account for his livelihood. He further contended that the complainant is a regular customer of the opposite party bank branch and is consumer of opposite party. The complainant deposited four cheques in the bank branch of opposite party No. 1 given by various parties / customers of the complainant on 29.3.2015 and one of the said cheque issued by M/s Jay Veer Aar Shawls drawn on United Branch of India for Rs. 27,499/- was neither encashed nor returned to the complainant, therefore, the complainant enquired the entire matter and he came to know that as per version of opposite party on the midnight of 29-30/3/2015, there is theft in the box of opposite party bank branch in which cheques were presented and the bank has lodged FIR in this regard and the said cheque was also stolen by somebody along with other cheques. He further contended that the compliant enquired from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and in the mid of April 2015 the complainant came to know that stolen cheque was passed by one Rajesh Harilal Parmar and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have provided the copy of said cheuqe image from the computer. He further contended that there is column of pay to has been changed in the said cheuqe from Ganesh Textiles to Rajesh Harilal Parmar and the said cutting is duly authenticated. The complainant regularly approached the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 with the request to give the detail about the status of above said cheuqe but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The complainant made his best efforts to know about the status of his cheque but opposite parties did not give any response to it rather openly declared that the cheque has been stolen from the bank branch and the same is not traced out inspite of efforts made by the officials of opposite party bank. As per guidelines of reserve Bank of India, it is duty of bank to provide facility for acknowledgement of cheques at regular collection counters should be available to the customers and no branch should refuse to give an acknowledgement if the customer tender the cheques at the counters.  The banks should ensure that the customers are not compelled to drop the cheques in the drop box. Further in the contents of customer awareness in this regard bank should invariably display on the cheque drop box itself that customer can also tender the cheque at the counter and obtain acknowledgement on the pay-in-slips. The above message is required to be displayed in English, Hindi and the concerned regional language of the State. He further contended that the complainant also sent a legal notice dated 13.2.2017 to the opposite party but the opposite party has failed to comply with the said legal notice and even did not bother to give any reply to the said legal notice which itself has reflected the act and conduct of opposite party. In view of the above said facts and circumstances. It is evident that there is great deficiency in service, unfair trade practice  and negligence on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the present complaint be allowed.

7        On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant has only mentioned that complainant deposited four cheques for collection, no details of the cheques lost has been placed on record.  He contended that one cheque has been debited which was issued by M/s Jay Veer Aar Shawls drawn on United Bank of India for Rs.27499/-  The complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties. The main case revolve around the United Bank of India, who has made the payment of cheque for Rs. 27499 as alleged by the complainant, the column of pay to has been changed from M/s Ganesh Textiles to Rajesh Harilal Parmar and the said cutting has been duly authenticated, as admitted by the complainant. The statement made by the complainant is self contradictory, if the cutting in the name of payee is duly authenticated it cannot be a forged cheque. Keeping in view the detailed facts, the United Bank of India who has made the payment of the cheque in question is necessary and proper party, the party M/s Jay Vee Aar Shawls who is drawer of cheque and forged name of payee M/s Rajesh Harilal Parmar being the  forged name of payees is also a necessary party. The complainant also alleged that the cheque has been forged and the name of the payee has been changed from M/s Ganesh Textiles to M/s Rajesh Harilal Parmar. The allegation of fraud and forgery cannot be decided under summary procedure. The opposite party No. 1 has already filed FIR with the Police Station concerned for the loss of the stolen cheques and the matter is under investigation. The cases concerning forged/ forgery are not to be decided by this commission because these cases require voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary and further more cross examination of witnesses is also required at length which is not possible under summary procedure. The complainant has neither deposited the receipt of cheques , name of drawer, name of payee nor the amount of the cheques deposited has been mentioned. As no information was provided by the complainant to opposite party No. 1, as such specific action/ against the payment of these cheques could not be taken for stopping the payment. He further contended that had the complainant provided the details of cheques to the opposite party No. 1, the loss could have been averted. There is no opposite party No. 3 in the title of the complaint, how Rajesh Harilal Parmar could have passed the stolen cheque. Account No. 0660050028365 does not belong to the complainant, rather no such account exists in the branch and prayed that the present complaint be dismissed. 

8        In the present case, dispute is that the complainant has deposited four cheques out of which one cheque No. 284456 issued by M/s Jay Vee Aar Shawls in the name of M/s Ganesh Textile Mills and the said cheque has been stolen from the box of opposite party bank branch and the stolen cheque was passed by one Rajesh Harilal Parmar. The complainant has placed on record  letter written by Jay Vee Aar Shawls to the opposite party Ex. C-2, in which it has been clearly mentioned that cheque in question has been issued in the name of M/s Ganesh Textile but the same has been encashed in the name of one Rajesh Harilal Parmar . The complainant has also placed on record statement of account Ex. C-3 which shows that cheque has been encahsed in the name of Rajesh Harilal Parmar. The complainant has also placed on record copy of cheque and on the same from the naked eye it appears that the name of payee has been changed in the name of Rajesh Harilal Parmar by overwriting   But at the time of passing the cheque the opposite party has not taken in to consideration this aspect. It is admitted case by the opposite party that the cheque in question has been stolen from their bank branch. The complainant has validly deposited the cheque payable in the name of M/s Ganesh Textile which is quite clear from the Ex. C-2 but the same has been encashed in the name of one Rajesh Harilal Parmar which is quite clear from statement Ex. C-3. The cheque in question has been stolen from the custody of opposite party and after that same has been encahsed by one Rajesh Harilal Parmar. It is the responsibility of the opposite party/bank to keep the documents/cheques in their safe custody.  The opposite party has not taken any step for stopping the payment of cheque in question. By clearing the cheque in question in the name of Rajesh Harilal Parmar, it constitutes deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

9        In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 27,499/- to the complainant. However, the opposite party can recover the said amount from said Rajesh Harilal Parmar as per law.  The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 7,000/- ( Rs. Seven Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 4,000/- ( Rs Four Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order will be supplied by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar to the parties as per rules. File be sent back to the District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

24.08.2022