Panjab National bank Panjab National Bank Panjab Nationall Bank
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:18.10.2007 Date of Order:19.01.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2116 OF 2007 M/s Kavitha Traders, No. 248-250, L.N. Complex, Lal Buildings, Shop No.5 & 6, II Floor, Old Taragupet, Bangalore-560 053, By its Proprietor, Sanjay Kumar Purba, Represented by its G.P.A Holder, Mahesh Kumar Purba. Complainant V/S 1. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Head Office No. 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. 2. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Indore Branch, Indore (M.P). 3. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, No. 639, Bhandari Mansion, Chickpet, Bangalore-560 053. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant is a firm dealing with Western Kids Wear and Readymade Garments registered U/Sec.22 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act of 2003. The complainant has purchased the goods like Western Kids Wear and Readymade Garments from various parts of India on a credit basis and for the credit amount advanced cheques will be issued by the complainant. The complainant is the customer of the Punjab National Bank. He has issued a cheque bearing No. 469702 for Rs.25,000/- to Manish Dresses, Indore drawn on 28/04/2007 for his purchase of the Western Kids Wear and Readymade Garments from the Manish Dresses. M/s Manish Dresses has presented the same through his Indian Bank, Indore (M.P) on 30/04/2007, but the same has been returned and dishonoured with an endorsement of insufficient funds in the account of complainant. On 30/04/2007 the Bank account shows the balance amount of Rs.83,477-22 in the account of complainant. The complainant has produced Pass Book Extract at the time of 30/04/2007. The complainant has issued a legal notice through RPAD. The respondents send a letter on 25/06/2007 to the complainant stating that send the documents like dishonoured cheque and Bank endorsement copy and it has been sent by RPAD by the Advocate for the complainant. The respondents again on 30/07/2007 send a reply letter stating that the complainant has not signed the cheque. Due to this reason the complainant has lost his business caliber and capacity in the business society. Hence, the complaint. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No.3 filed version stating that the entire allegations made in the complaint attributing negligence, irregularity and irresponsibility etc., on the part of the opposite party Bank are denied as false and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The cheque bearing No.469702 dated 28/04/2007 for Rs.25,000/- drawn in the account of the complainant was presented on 30/04/2007 and the said instrument was returned with an endorsement as insufficient funds. The balance of Rs.83,477-22 in the account as on the date of presentation of the cheque in question is admitted. The cheque was not signed by the drawer of the instrument, the opposite party could not honour the same even though there was a sufficient balance in the account on which the cheque was drawn. On noticing the discrepancy, a cross mark was put indicating the absence of the signature by the department concerned as the same could not be paid. The cross mark made on the space in between the seal of the firm on the face of the cheque, sufficiently proves the reason for the return of the cheque. While returning the cheque to the collecting bankers, reason for dishonour of the cheque was mentioned as funds insufficient instead of signature required purely due to failure of link technology in the operation of the computer. The cheque was returned with due care and without negligence keeping the interest of the account holder. The cheque was dishonoured in the absence of the correct mandate. In view of all these reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed. 3. Affidavit evidence filed. Arguments are heard and complainant also submitted written argument. 4. The point for consideration is:- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank? 5. The opposite party submitted that the complainant is maintaining the Current Account in the name of M/s Kavitha Traders is a Proprietorship concerned with the opposite party Bank for quite some time. The Bank admits that it had received cheque in question or payment through Indore Branch and on verification it was found that the cheque was not signed by the drawer of the cheque though seal of the firm was affixed on the cheque. Therefore, the Bank could not honour the cheque even though there was sufficient balance in the account. On noticing this fact a cross mark in red ink was put indicating the absence of signature of the drawer. However, the Bank admits that while returning cheque to the collecting bankers a reason for dishonour of cheque was mentioned as funds insufficient instead of signature required purely due to failure of link technology in the operation of computer. It is the case of the opposite party that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Cheque was returned with a due care and caution keeping the interest of the account holder. Admittedly, the complainant was not put to any financial loss. Original cheque has been produced. On seeing the cheque a cross mark in red ink is appearing below the seal of Kavitha Traders. This cross mark in red ink clearly established that the drawer of the cheque has not signed on the cheque. Therefore, there is no wrong on the part of the opposite party Bank in returning the cheque without honouring the same. The Bank has safeguarded the interest of the complainant by not honouring the cheque. It was only because of the fault on the part of the complainant that cheque was dishonoured. Therefore, he could not make grievance about the inconvenience, hardship caused to him. No person can be compensated for his own wrong. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party so, no compensation is payable. Some times in hurry the businessmen issues cheques by putting the seal of the firm without signing the cheque. Therefore, such thing is not uncommon in day to day business transactions. The only thing the Bank has committed mistake while returning the cheque, the endorsement mentions funds insufficient instead of signature required. This mistake has happened due to failure of computer system and link technology. The Advocate for the opposite party submitted that in usual course the Bank returns the cheque by marking funds insufficient since there is no system in the computer technology to mention signature required. Therefore, on its technical ground the learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that no deficiency in service can be attributed to the Bank. The learned Advocate submitted that, the Bank on the other hand safeguarded the interest of the complainant by returning the cheque on finding the signature was not available on the cheque. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER Rhr.,
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
