DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.345 of 30-07-2010 Decided on 29-09-2010 Himanshu Mittal S/o Shri Parmod, R/o 102, New Shakti Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. Neat DAV College, Bathinda through its Branch Manager. ......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Himanshu Mittal, complainant in person. For Opposite party: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. In brief, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection, 1986. The complainant is holding Saving Bank Account No.016301509368 with ICICI Bank, Main Branch, located at Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. He had issued a cheque No.637006 for Rs.5,000/- in favour of ECE Electronics “Right Issue”. The said cheque was issued for the subscription money of the “Right Issue” offered by the company. The complainant had credit balance of Rs.20,246.11 paise on 20.07.2010. The Bank had dishonored the cheque on the ground that the signatures are not tallied. The cheque was issued from the complainant's own cheque book and the cheque was A/c payee. Therefore, there was no reason to dishonor the cheque without prior intimation to him. The complainant further alleged that he has suffered a loss of Rs.5,000/- being the difference of market rate of equity shares issued and the price at which the Right Issue was offered to him. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite party through its reply pleaded that the complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of false facts because complainant had simply stated that since cheque was issued from his own cheque book and the cheque was account payee, therefore, it should not have been returned whereas, it was the duty of the bank to verify that whether signatures of the complainant tally with the cheque with signatures given by complainant to the bank at the time of opening his account referred to as standard signatures. The cheque was not cashed in the interest of complainant because complainant could have lost his cheque book or any other person could have misused his cheque and opposite party have only performed his duty by not clearing the cheque on which signatures did not tally. His cheque was dishonored with bonafide intention by the opposite party. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard led by the complainant himself and counsel for opposite party and record alongwith written submission submitted by opposite party perused. 5. The complainant has submitted that he had issued a cheque No.637006 for Rs.5,000/- in favour of ECE Electronics “Right Issue” which was issued for the subscription money of the “Right Issue” offered by the company despite having sufficient credit balance of Rs.20,246.11 paise on 20.07.2010, his cheque was dishonored on the ground that the signatures not tallied. The complainant argued that he issued the cheque from his own cheque book and was the account payee cheque. Therefore, there was no question of dishonoring the cheque without prior intimation to him. 6. The learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that his cheque was account payee and issued from his own cheque book, therefore, it could not be returned as it was the duty of the bank to verify the signatures of the complainant, tally with signatures given on cheque and signatures given by the complainant to the bank at the time of opening his account referred to as standard signatures. The cheque was not cashed in the interest of the complainant because the complainant could have lost his cheque book or any other person could have misused his cheque, the opposite party have only performed his duty. The opposite party has placed on file Ex.R-2 on which the specimen signatures are shown to be given in the bank by the complainant at the time of opening his account. 7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the signatures which are endorsed on main complaint as well as on the affidavit of the complainant are altogether different from the standard signatures given by the complainant in the bank. A perusal of Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 i.e. cheque of Rs.5,000/-, the complainant had issued in favour of opposite party, the signatures on all these three documents are altogether different from specimen signatures which are given by the complainant to the bank. Hence, the inference can be drawn that the signatures which were put on the cheque were different from the signatures available with the bank, otherwise, there was no reason for the bank to dishonor the cheque. They have dishonored the cheque for security of the complainant with bonafide intention. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 29.09.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member | 
