DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.<br /> CC.No.387 of 07.12.2009<br /> Decided on 03.05.2010<br /> Bhola Singh S/o Modan Singh, resident of Kal Jhrani, Distt. Bathinda.<br /> .......Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. ICICI Bank, Bibi Wala Road, Opp. 100 feet Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2. PNB Bank, Bank Bazar, through its Chief Manager, Bathinda.<br /> 3. PNB Bank registered office 7-Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi, through its MD/Chairman/President/GM/CMD.<br /> .........Opposite parties<br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> Present:-<br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.1.<br /> Sh.R.N.Jain,counsel for opposite parties No.2&3.<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the complainant's case is that he purchased TVS Star motorcycle for a sum of Rs.35,000/- through opposite party No.1. He deposited Rs.16,750/- to the opposite party No.1as margin money and he gave 20 cheques of Rs.1140/- each with the opposite party No.1. He alleged that opposite party Nos. 2&3 have tampered with the figure of 1 as 3 while making the cheques of Rs.1140/- as of Rs.1340/-. Therefore there is deficiency in service and filed the present complaint.<br /> 2. The opposite parties have filed their separate written replies. The opposite party No.1 pleaded that the complainant himself had issued post dated cheque of Rs.1340/- each and he is in default of Rs.6916/- which he has not paid. The opposite party Nos. 2&3 pleaded that the issuing of cheque book in saving account is a gratuitous act and the Bank do not charge any thing for the same. The complainant has misused this facility by handing over the cheque to ICICI Bank. All the cheques were authenticated and debited in the saving account of the complainant from time to time and the money is sent to ICICI Bank. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. Parties have led their evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings. <br /> 4. Arguments heard. In para Nos. 2 and 3 of the complaint the complainant alleged that he had purchased TVS Star motorcycle for Rs.35,000/- from opposite party No.1. He deposited Rs.16,750/- with opposite party No.1 as margin money and gave 20 cheques of Rs.1140/- each. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party Nos. 2&3 have tampered with the cheques of Rs.1140/- as Rs.1340/- without getting prior consent/signatures of the complainant. According to the complainant, all the cheques were of Rs.1140/- but later on, figure 1 was corrected as 3 by tampering with the original cheques of Rs.1140/- to Rs.1340/-.<br /> 5. The opposite party No.1 pleaded in para No.2 that the complainant himself had issued post dated cheque of Rs.1340/- each and the complainant is in default of Rs.6916/- which he has not paid. The opposite party Nos. 2&3 pleaded that the issuance of cheques in saving account is a gratuitous act and the Bank do not charge any thing for the same. The complainant has misused this facility by handing over the cheque to ICICI Bank. The opposite parties further pleaded that the cheques were authenticated by the complainant by putting signatures thereon under the amount and debited in the saving account of the complainant from time to time and the money is being sent to ICICI Bank.<br /> 6. From the above discussion, it is concluded that the complainant has given 20 blank cheques of Rs.1140/- each to the opposite party Nos.2&3 who lateron changed figure 1 as 3 by tampering with it making the amount of Rs.1140/- as Rs.1340/-. From the perusal of the cheques it is revealed that the tampering was done and it was on the part of the complainant himself as all the cheques are duly signed by him which shows that the figure 1 is tampered as 3 and each cheque is duly signed by the complainant. Moreover in the cheques, the amount written in the words as Rs.1340/-. From this, it is clear that the cheques were issued for Rs.1340/- and not for Rs.1140/-. Apart from this, not even a single cheque is of Rs.1140/- has been ever debited from the account of the complainant. Hence no deficiency in service is proved on the part of the opposite parties. This complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.<br /> 7. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> 03.05.2010 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member<br /> <br />