Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/51/2017

F.Bakir,s/o.Fakhruddin - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Standard chartered Bank customer care unit rep by Head of customer service - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Nathan and associates

11 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  23.03.2017

                                                               Order pronounced on:  25.06.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY  THE 25^th  DAY OF JUNE 2019

 

C.C.NO.51/2017

 

Mr.F.Bakir,

S/o.Fakhruddin,

No.213-A (OldNo.113-A),

Broadway, Chennai – 600 108.

 

                                                                                        …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.M/s.Standard Chartered Bank,

Custome Care Unit,

Rep by Head of Customer Service,

No.19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2.The Head-Retail CDD Operations,

Standard Chartered Bank,

CDD Operations,

No.19, Rajaji Salai, 1^st Floor,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.Nathan and Associates

 

Counsel for    opposite parties                  : R & P Partners

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of the mental agony and also to pay for  the dishonor charges imposed to the tune of Rs.2,500/- with cost of complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is an entrepreneur, owner, and pioneer in the field of abrasives, running an age old business in the name and style of M/s.Vazirbun Trading. First opposite party started dishonouring quite a number of cheques citing signature mismatch. The opposite party had adopted a practice of clearing cheques with lower value but used to return the cheques of higher value with the same specimen signature giving no proper justification for the same. The complainant submits that he had issued three high value cheques (a) Dated 29.09.2016 bearing cheque No.000051 for  an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. (b) Dated 02.10.2016. bearing cheque No.000052, amount  Rs.16,00,000/- (c) Dated 16.10.2016, bearing cheque No.000053 amount Rs.14,00,000/- and all  these cheques were returned citing signature mismatch. The complainant submits that the said act of not clearing the above mentioned cheques has not only thrown undue hardships and financial loss. The complainant had preferred a written complaint through their letter dated 09.11.2016 to the 1^st opposite party. Another letter dated 25.11.2016 to the 2^nd opposite party for which he got a reply from the 1^st opposite party through their letter Ref No. 12/16/047738/LIB dated reply 17.12.2017. Instead of soothing the complainant, the letter merely stated facts and certain blunt actions taken on the part of the opposite party which does not justify for the losses. Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties bank has always acted in bonafide discharge of its duty. It would not be out of place to elucidate that the signature differences are viewed strictly by the opposite parties bank keeping in mind the security of the customer’s money held with the opposite parties bank.Extra effort is done by the opposite parties bank only to ensure that a customer’s valued money does not go into wrong hands. Hence, the opposite parties bank ensures clearance of cheque with caution. The opposite party bank had not levied any return charges for the cheques. The opposite party bank confirms that there have been no cheque return charges levied to the account. A review of the statement of accounts would reveal that there are no charges levied for  the said return. The cheques are scrutinized thoroughly prior to clearing the said cheques thus presented. Taking into consideration the forgeries in place in recent times, the cheque of high value are prone to scrutiny. The opposite parties bank had also received a legal notice and responded to the same. It is s settled position of law that any act which is done in bonafide discharge of duty cannot be termed as negligent or deficient. In these circumstances, the above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is therefore  prayed to dismiss the complaint.                  

3. The complainant and the   opposite parties had come forward with their respective proof affidavit and documents. Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked.

 

          4. The written arguments of the complainant and the opposite parties were filed and the oral arguments of both were heard. 

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant is an entrepreneur, running business in the name and style of  M/s Vazirbun Trading. The complainant  is having an account in the 1^st opposite party  bank. The complainant had issued three cheques  (a) dated 29.09.2016 bearing cheque No.000051 for an amount of Rs.20,000,00/- (b) dated 02.10.2016 bearing cheque No.000052, amount Rs.16,00,000/-. (c) dated 16.10.2016, bearing cheque No.000053, amount of Rs.14,00,000/- and all the three cheques were returned citing “Signature Mismatch”. The above said cheques with return memo are filed as Ex.A3, Ex.A5 & Ex.A6. The copy of the account statement of the complainant  from 28.07.2016 to 27.10.2016 is marked Ex.A7. The complainant contends that  he is of view that all the cheques  returned citing “Signature Mismatch” which brought the complainant shame in his business circle and further lowered his reputation. In view of return of  the cheques the complainant preferred a written complaint through a letter in Ex.A10 dated 09.11.2016 to the 1^st opposite party reiterating the facts in the complaint and the said letter was received by the 1^st opposite party. Another letter dated 25.11.2016 vide Ex.A12 was sent to the 2^nd opposite party by the complainant. Ex.A13 is the reply letter received from the 1^stopposite party by the complainant and then on 20.01.2017 the complainant had issued legal notice to both the opposite parties through his lawyer under Ex.A14. The complainant  also contends that instead of soothing the complainant, the letter from the opposite parties  contain certain blind action taken by the opposite party which does not justify the losses accrued by the action of returning the cheques by  the part of the opposite parties. Hence he preferred complaint.

          07. The opposite parties would contend that they have acted in bonafide discharge of the duty. Even though the cheques are returned as alleged by the complainant, no cheque return charges are levied in the complainant’s account. Cheques are scrutinized thoroughly prior to clearing of the  said cheques, taking into the consideration of the  forgery in the recent past in some places, the cheque of high value  are prone to  scrutiny and is also communicated by the opposite parties  vide their responses. Hence there is no deficiency in service by the opposite party.

08.  The cheques which have been returned by the opposite parties are marked as Ex.B1. KYC documents submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties bank are Ex.B2. In the above said document the complainant  had submitted only the office phone number  as 25380568  and there is no  mention about mobile number, residential phone number and email ID as stated by the opposite parties. The opposite parties also contend that the bank had tried contacting the complainant through the said land line number prior to returning the cheques despite attempts, it got failed. Statement of Account of the complainant from 01.01.2016 till 14.06.2017 is marked as Ex.B3. From Ex.B3 it is inferred that  three cheques as alleged by the complainant is returned for the reason as the signature mismatch and there is no charges levied for the said return. Under Ex.B6 on 27.03.2017 response notice was sent to the complainant’s counsel.

09. The complainant has filed some more copy of the cheques and stated that the opposite parties returned the high value cheques which is given in  course of his business by the complainant without any justification and the bank had not informed him even if a minor mistake is found in the cheques. But as explained by the opposite parties in their written version cheques are normally scrutinized thoroughly prior to clearance taking into consideration of the forgery took place recently in some place and in view of the same, high value cheques of the complainant was also scrutinized and the mismatching information was communicated to the complainant by the opposite parties bank vide their responses Ex.B4 & Ex.B6. This complaint was filed on 23.03.2017 and the response to the complainant’s query was given on 17.12.2016.  On perusal of all the records the return of the cheques after scrutinizing the cheques with the specimen signature available in   the  bank and it was only towards the best interest of the complainant. Moreover, the land line number is only given in KYC document as submitted by the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties has stated that the contacts by the bank with the complainant at the above said land line number ended in vain inspite of many  attempts. No evil intention or earlier disputes if any, for the return of cheques between the parties have been established by the complainant. The complainant’s letter was responded by the opposite parties. Hence the return of cheques that too of  high value is considered by this forum for the best interest of the complainant only. It is also pertinent to note that there are no charges levied for the said return also as per the statement of accounts submitted by the bank. Therefore, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant has not substantiated any proof that return of the cheques citing the “Signature Mismatch” resulted in any loss as alleged by him.  Therefore the act of the opposite parties was in view of the bonafide intention of discharging the duties and cannot be considered as deficiency in service.

10. POINT NO: 2

          In view of the conclusion arrived in point No.1 as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is not  entitled to any relief.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 25^th   day of June 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 29.02.2016                   Copy of Cheque No.00010

Ex.A2 dated 06.03.2016                   Copy of Cheque No.465338

Ex.A3 dated 29.09.2016                   Copy of Cheque No.000051

Ex.A4 dated 30.09.2016                   Copy of pass book entry

Ex.A5 dated 02.10.2016                   Copy of cheque No.000052 with return memo

Ex.A6 dated 16.10.2016                   Copy of cheque No.000053 with return memo

Ex.A7 dated 27.10.2016         Copy of Account statement for 28.07.2016 to 27.10.16

Ex.A8 dated 31.10.2016         Copy of Acccount statement for 31.07.16 to 26.10.16

Ex.A9 dated 01.11.2016                   Copy of cheque No.000054

Ex.A10 dated 09.11.2016       Copy of letter sent  to the 1^st opposite party with  acknowledgement

Ex.A11 dated 20.11.2016                 Copy of cheque No.000055

Ex.A12 dated 25.11.2016                 Copy of letter to the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A13 dated 17.12.2016       Copy of reply Letter Received from standard Chartered bank

Ex.A14 dated NIL                   Copy of Legal Notice sent to the opposite parties with acknowledgement

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated 29.09.2016                   a) Cheque No-000051

                    02.10.2016                   b) Cheque No-000052

                    16.10.2016                   c)  Cheque No- 000053

 

Ex.B2 dated 14.02.2009                   KYC documents

 

Ex.B3 dated 01.01.2016                   Statement of Accounts

                to 14.06.2017

 

Ex.B4 dated 17.12.2016                   Response letter    

 

Ex.B5 dated 20.01.2017                   Legal Notice

 

Ex.B6 dated 27.03.2017                   Response Notice

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT