Ms Sona Jain V/S Ms A.P.Mahesh Co.operative Urban Bank Ltd. - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/1133/06

Ms A.P.Mahesh Co.operative Urban Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms Sona Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Ms V. Gouri Sankara Rao

17 Feb 2009

ORDER

First Appeal No. FA/1133/06

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Hyderabad-II)

1. Ms A.P.Mahesh Co.operative Urban Bank Ltd.

D.No.15-7-240, Yadav Towers, Begum bazar, Hyd-12

BEFORE:

PRESENT:

ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

HYDERABAD

F.A.1133/2006 against C.D. 1497/2004, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad

Between:

A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Rep. by its Branch Manager

D.No. 15-7-240, Yadav Towers

Begum Bazar, Hyderabad-12. *** Appellant/ O.P.

And

Ms. Sona Jain

D/o. Mangalchandji Gothi

R/o. 15-7-249, Begum Bazar

Hyderabad. *** Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. M. Papa Reddy

QUORUM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

*****

1) This is an appeal preferred by opposite party bank against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she was having S.B. Account No. 51829 with the appellant bank which she had been operating since 2002. In March, 2004 she informed the bank that she had changed her name as well as her signature and requested the bank to honour those cheques containing new signatures. Since then the bank has been honouring the cheques containing her new signature. While so, she found a debit entry in her account in respect of cheque No. 75569 Dt. 4.6.2004 for Rs. 10,000/- in the

name of one Ashish. Immediately she made a complaint followed by legal notice for which the bank gave reply alleging that there was no irregularity in honouring the said cheque. When she had given specific instructions not to honour the cheques containing old signature the bank ought not to have honoured the cheque. This amounts to failure to perform the duty, and deficiency in service, and therefore she claimed Rs. 10,000/- covered under the cheque with interest together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs.

3) The appellant bank resisted the case. It alleged that in March, 2004 the complainant has informed the change in her signature; however, there were no specific instructions to dishonour the cheques containing the old signature. The cheques issued prior to March, 2004 were valid for six months, and that the letter did not contain about the loss of cheque book or cheque leaves. When she admitted that the cheque contained her signature and she having had the knowledge of issuing a cheque, she ought to have informed specifically not to honour the said cheque. When she had negligently signed the cheque leaves which resulted in its payment, she could allege that there was deficiency in service on its part. She did not specifically instruct the bank not to honour the cheques which she had already signed prior to change of her signature. It has no responsibility. It cannot dishonour the cheque which was duly signed by the complainant and handed over to the drawee. It is her self made mistake. It cannot constitute to negligence on its part. Specifically she did not inform not to honour the cheque in question. They were not liable to pay the cheque amount or any compensation, and therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked. Refuting her evidence the bank filed the affidavit evidence of its Branch Manager.

5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that honouring the old cheque despite her instructions that she had changed her signature amounted to deficiency in service, and therefore directed the bank to pay Rs. 10,000/- covered under the cheque with interest @ 9% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the bank preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the fact that the complainant did not disown issuance of cheque nor gave instructions to dishonour the cheques issued prior to March, 2004. Since the issuance of cheque was not in dispute, it cannot be held that honouring the cheque amounts to deficiency in service, and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant was having S.B. Account with appellant bank since 2002. In March, 2004 she informed the bank that she changed her name as well as her signature and requested the bank to honour the cheques containing her new signature. However, contrarily the bank had honoured a cheque issued by her for Rs. 10,000/- in the name of one Ashish On coming to know of it, she protested by issuing a notice on 9.6.2004 followed by legal notice for which the bank gave reply stating that there was no mistake on its part in honouring the cheque. The complainant alleges that the instructions that were issued by her was not to honour the cheques containing old signature and honouring them amounts to deficiency in service.

8) It is an undisputed fact that complainant herself issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- in March, 2004 in the name of one Ashish. Equally, it is not in dispute that she informed the bank in March, 2004 that she had changed her name as well as her signature and instructed the bank to honour the cheques containing her new signature. Now she complains that though she issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- in the month of March, 2004 it ought not to have been honoured by the bank in the light of instructions given by her. The bank defends its action on three grounds (1) there were no specific instructions not to honour the cheque issued for Rs. 10,000/- (2) not to honour the cheques that were issued in the month of March, 2004 and (3) she did not inform that she had issued cheques prior to intimation. Since the disputed cheque was issued in the month of March, 2004, valid for a period of six months, it has honoured the said cheque.

9) At the cost of repetition, we may state that the complainant had admittedly issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- in the month of March, 2004. No doubt she had informed the bank that she changed her name as well as her signature and requested the bank to honour those cheques which contain new signature, she did not issue specific instructions not to honour the previous cheques that were issued by her in the name of third parties. She did not allege that she had issued cheques in favour of third parties which bear old signatures. In the light of fact that she had issued a cheque in the very month of March, 2004 the same was honoured in June, 2004. There is no intimation to the bank not to honour this specific cheque. More over the cheques that were issued by her would be valid for a period of six months. When she did not intend that the cheque issued by her in the name of Ashish should not be honoured, she ought to have specifically informed the bank not to honour the cheques that were issued in the month of March,

2004 or those cheques which were issued by her with old signatures. When she got the cheque book along with leaves to be utilized by her and when the bank has accepted the said cheque bearing her signature and when there was no specific instruction not to honour the old cheque the bank cannot be said to be deficient in service in honouring the cheque. It is altogether different had the bank honoured the cheque not issued by the complainant or honoured the cheques which she did not intend to be accepted. When there was no specific request from the complainant not to honour the questioned cheque which she had admittedly issued, we do not think that this amounts to deficiency in service. No doubt that she informed the bank that she had changed her name as well as her signature. It does not mean that earlier cheques that were issued by her have to be dishonoured. When there was no specific request from the complainant not to honour the cheques containing old signature, when she admittedly had issued, the bank should not be found fault with. We do not agree with the submission made by the complainant in this regard. When the complainant had admittedly issued the cheque now she cannot turn round and contend that the bank ought not to have honoured the cheque. When the very complainant was at fault she cannot complain against the bank. We do not see any merits in the complaint filed by her. For the mistake committed by her, the bank should not be found fault with or penalized.