JUDGMENT 12.11.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 29.4.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby its complaint bearing No.1193/2008 was dismissed. 2. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant firm was having Current Account No. CC-2666 with the Indian Overseas Bank- OP No. 2. It was alleged that on 8.10.2007 some unusual transactions were noticed in company’s bank Account Statement. One cheque No. 325295 for Rs.4.80 lacs in the name of Perminder Singh was presented to OP No. 2 which was not encashed due to Bank’s Policy that multicity cheques cannot be entertained or encashed. Again on the same day, cheque bearing no. 118567 for Rs.4.80 lacs was presented in the OP No.2 and the same was encahsed by the Bank authorities without verifying and clarifying the signatures of the account holder. Again on the same day i.e. 8.10.2007, cheque bearing no. 118568 for Rs.7.40 lacs was presented with Branch of OP at Sector 39, Chandigarh in the name of Perminder Singh and the same was not encashed by the Bank since the bank was CBS branch and cheque beyond Rs.5.00 lacs could not be encashed. Thereafter, again on the same day, cheque bearing no. 118573 for Rs.6.80 lacs in the name of Perminder Singh was again presented with OP No. 2 and the same was encashed by the Bank without verifying and clarifying the signatures of the account holder. It was alleged that the Bank was deficient in rendering proper services while encashing the cheques of huge amount without verifying and comparing the signatures of account holder, thereby caused irreparable loss, mental harassment, financial loss to the complainant Company. Hence, complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.11.60 lacs besides Rs. 7.00 lacs on account of mental agony, harassment etc and Rs.11000/- as costs.. 3. On the other hand, OPs contested the complaint before the District Forum by filing reply inter-alia stating therein that the Complainant was maintaining current account bearing No. 2666 for its commercial business enterprises. However, on 8.10.2007, one Cheque in the name of Perminder Singh had come for payment and the said cheque being bearer cheque and also being multicity cheque was not honoured by the Bank as per its Policy that multicity cheques could not be drawn for making local payments/self withdrawals/cash payment. It was pleaded that on 8.10.2007 one person posing himself to be Perminder Singh presented bearer Cheque of the Company bearing No. 118567, dated 6.10.2007 favouring Perminer Singh drawn by the Complainant. The cheque was passed by the concerned Officials of the Bank after verifying the signatures of the drawer which exactly resembled with their specimen signatures held on record with the OPs and as the signatures on the cheque matched, so it was authorized for making payment to the bearer of the cheque as there was no reason to doubt the bonafide of the person being the instrument and signatures in order. It was stated that the signatures were firstly checked/verified and approved by Mr. A.C. Grover, Sr. Manager and thereafter, had gone for second checking/ verification and approval to Sh. V.K. Banal, Sr. Manager in the same Brach as per the procedure adopted by the Bank and the said Managers had verified the signatures as per the endorsements made on the cheque and thereafter the payment was made to the holder of the cheque. Further, the cheque being from validly issued cheque book, bearing the stamp and signatures of the Company and its authorized signatory, there was no doubt that the same was forged and therefore, payments were rightly made by the Bank. It was pleaded that the said payment was made against the uncleared balance as the account holder was having good reputation and as per the practice of the Bank they honour the instruments of good parties against uncleared balance . Further, the complainant was having CC limit of Rs.30 lacs from the OP branch at Sector-7, Chandigarh. The said cheque firstly was presented to the Branch Manager of the Bank - Sh. Diwakara Rao who made his endorsement to make the payment against the uncleared balance. Thereafter, the signatures on the cheque were verified by both Sh. Avinash Chander Grover and Sh. V.K. Bansal, Sr. Managers. It was stated that the Sector-32 Branch of the bank had returned the cheque as per the instructions that for current accounts and cash credit accounts the monetary ceiling for cash payments from CBS branches for the purpose of deposit and withdrawals was maximum Rs.50,000/- . It was stated that the intimation of loss/misplacement/stealing of cheques was given to the bank for the first time at 6.20 P.m. on 8.10.2007 when the payments had already been made and thereafter other cheques intimated to have been misplaced/lost were blocked. Thus, the officials of the bank were not at fault and there was no deficiency in service on their part. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissed the complaint being without any merit. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of appellant/complainant is that the complainant firm was having a very good reputation in the bank but still the bank officials had verified the name of the presenter of the cheque and reasons for withdrawing the huge amount in cash but it failed to verify the identity of the person who had withdrawn the huge amount of Rs.11.6 lacs from current Account No.CC-2666 of Lally Motors. It is submitted that due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of bank while illegally encashing the cheques of huge amount without verifying and comparing the signatures of account holder the complainant firm had to suffer huge monetary loss. However the above points of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for respondents/OPs. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that the disputed cheques were issued from the cheque books which were in the custody of the complainant. The complainant had current account with the bank and was having good reputation, so after comparing the signatures existing on the cheques with the specimen signatures in their record, the bank had honoured the instruments. When a cheque is presented to a bank for payment, the bank is expected to carefully scrutinize it in all respects by visual comparison with the specimen signature etc., of the drawer and unless on such scrutiny it finds reason to doubt the genuineness of the signatures of the drawer, it is bound to honour the instrument and make payment. It is so held by the Hon’ble National Commission in United Commercial Bank Vs Mahendra Popatlal Vora I(1995)CPJ 83(NC). It has been further stated in it that law imposes duty on the bank only to exercise in good faith such care and diligence as is reasonably possible under ordinary circumstances when a cheque is presented for payment. Since, bank did not find any reason to doubt genuineness of the instrument and made payment in good faith, so it does not constitute any deficiency in service on the part of Bank. In the instant case there is affidavit of Sh.A.Diwakara Rao, Asstt. General Manager who compared the signatures existing on the first cheque with the specimen signatures in their record. Thereafter the signatures were verified by Sh.A.C.Grover and Sh.B.K.Bansal,Senior Managers, whose affidavits are on the file to that effect. When after proper verification they were satisfied from the reply given by the bearer of the cheque that the cheque had come from proper custody and from a validly issued cheque book and had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the cheque, they could not refuse the payment. Similarly the second cheuqe was verified by the officers whose affidavits to that effect are on the file. Further, as observed by the learned District Forum the cheques were cleared against the uncleared balance on the basis of instructions annexure R-2 as the account holder was having good reputation with the bank and as per practice of the bank instruments of good parties against uncleared balance are honoured. Moreover, the complainant had CC limit of Rs.30.00 lacs with the bank that is why they considered it proper to clear the instrument against unclear balance. In fact it is the complainant who was to keep the proper custody of the cheque books and should have immediately informed the bank in case of theft or misplacement of cheques. The complainant informed the bank too late when both cheques stood honoured. 7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had lodged FIR No.201 on 6.11.2007 with the Police Station, Industrial Area, Chandigarh which was registered under Sections 406,420,467,468 IPC wherein it was alleged that the cheques were stolen and signatures of the drawer were forged. Thus, this matter would require a great deal of evidence before arriving at a right conclusion and for that proper remedy is not with the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act. Even otherwise the complainant firm having current account with bank which is of commercial nature, it does not fall under the definition of “consumer” and such disputes regarding commercial transactions are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. 8. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. Consequently the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, complainant would be at liberty to knock at the door of the appropriate court/forum for redressal of its grievance, as admissible under law. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
