Orissa

Cuttak

CC/204/2021

Rajesh Modi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs Suman Modi

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

 

C.C.No.204/2021

Rajesh Modi,

S/O:Sri Mahavir Pr. Modi,

Of BhasakoshLane,Nimchouri,

Cuttack-753002.                                         ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1. The Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Nayasadak,Cuttack-753002

 

2. Manager,Indian Bank,Nayasadak

 

3. Zonal Manager,

Indian Bank,

At:Vim-510,Sai Diary Bazar,

Sailashree Vihar,Chandrasekharpur,Bhubaneswar.-751021.

 

4. Zonal Manager,Punjab National Bank,

J/3 Revenue Plot No.1561(P),

At-Jagamara,PO-Khandagiri,Bhubaneswar-751030.                                        ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    07.12.2021

Date of Order:  22.02.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mrs. Suman Modi,Adv.& Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1 & 4:          Miss N.Pattnaik,Advocate.

For the O.Ps no.2 & 3:          Mr.S.K.Dey,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he has a Savings Account with O.P no.1 bearing no. 0244010163732.  He had issued a cheque bearing no.364477 on 15.9.21 for an amount of Rs.5100/- in favour of Mr. Anand Modi as gift cheque towards his marriage.  The said cheque of the complainant was presented before the Indian Bank by Mr. Anand Modi for encashment of the same on 17.9.21.  But on 18.9.21 the said Mr. Anand Modi had received an information from the bank that the cheque was returned up unpaid with an endorsement as “alteration require drawer’s authentication” and for the same, an amount of Rs.236/- was debited from the account of Mr. Anand Modi.  The complainant through his complaint petition has urged that there was no over-writing on the said cheque and he had sufficient funds in his account for encashing the said cheque as given by him in favour of Anand Modi.  An amount of Rs.118/- was also deducted from the account of the complainant which was done since because the cheque was returned. On 22.9.21 the complainant had issued a lawyer’s notice to the O.Ps through registered post.  It is for this, the complainant has filed his case before this Commission seeking from the O.Ps a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and inconvenience as caused together with the litigation cost.

          In order to prove his case the complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, all of them though have contested this case, O.Ps no.1& 4 have jointly filed their written version whereas O.Ps no.2 & 3 have filed their written version jointly.  According to the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 4, the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.  They admit about the savings account of the complainant with O.P no.1 bearing S.B.Account no.0244010163732.  They also admit about the cheque issued by the complainant bearing no.364477 for an amount of Rs.5100/- and on 17.9.21 the said cheque was presented before O.P no.2 for withdrawal of the amount but the cheque was returned without being drawn with a memo “alteration require drawer’s authentication”.  It is for this, an amount of Rs.236/- was deducted from the account as per rule.  Thus, it is the contention of O.P no.1 & 4 through their written version is that they were never deficient in their service as alleged and the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

          Copy of a letter wherein the alteration as made is reflected to be visible and also a copy of the cheque which was issued by the complainant in favour of Anand Modi bearing cheque no.364477 for an amount of Rs.5100/- wherein the date appears to be illegible are filed by O.Ps no.1& 4 together with their written version. 

          From the written version of O.Ps no.2 & 3, it is noticed that they have also stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  According to them, the cheque issued by the complainant in favour of Anand Modi bearing cheque no.364477 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Cuttack was placed for collection on 17.9.21 but it was returned unpaid on 18.9.21 as because there was an endorsement to that effect that “alteration require drawer’s authentication”.  Accordingly, they have urged to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

          They have filed copies of documents to that effect showing copy of the returned cheque vide Annexure-B alongwith their written version.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps no.1 &4 & O.Ps no.2 & 3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant has a S.B.Account bearing No.0244010163732 with O.P no.1 and he had issued a cheque in favour of one Anand Modi for a sum of Rs5100/- bearing cheque no.364477.  The said cheque was produced before the Indian Bank for encashment on 17.9.21 but was returned unpaid with an endorsement “alteration require drawer’s authentication”.  Accordingly, a sum of Rs.236/- was debited from the account of the said Anand Modi and also a sum of Rs.118/- was debited from the account of the complainant.  While advancing argument, the original cheque bearing no.364477 issued by the complainant in favour of Anand Modi for a sum of Rs.5100/- was presented before this Commission pertaining to A/c. No.0244010163732 in the Punjab National Bank of the complainant.  The said original cheque when perused, it is clearly visible to the naked eye that indeed the date as per the date column at the right-hand top corner of the said cheque was over-written.  Moreso, on perusal of Annexure-B which is copy of the said alleged cheque as annexed to the written versions of all the O.Ps, ;it is noticed that the date portion as mentioned above is not clear/illegible for which authentication of the drawer was very much required.  Accordingly, the cheque was returned back unpaid when produced for its encashment.  Thus, by doing so, the O.Ps cannot be sad to be deficient in their service as alleged by the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Pointsno.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it is held that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                                          ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against all the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                     

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

         

 

                                                                                                                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                 Member