BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL, 5TH FLOOR,

ISBT, KASHMERE GATE: DELHI-110006

No. DF(Central)/2015/                                                        Dated:

Complaint Case No. 278 of 2013                        

Ms. Sharda Bhagat

CA-63A, Shalimar Bagh

NEW DELHI – 110 088                                                 Complainant

Versus

1. Chief Manager

Back Office, Service Branch

PNB House, Pahar Ganj,

D B Gupta Road,

NEW DELHI – 110 005

2. Chairman

Punjab National Bank

Bhikaji Cama Place,

PNB Building

NEW DELHI                                                 Opposite Parties

ORDER

Complaint under  Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

          The case of the complainant is that she has an account with branch office of the OP at Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi – 07 vide account no. 0617000400004369.  It is alleged by the complainant that she had issued a cheque bearing no. 309648 dated 14.1.2013 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of herself and had deposited the same in Oriental Bank of Commerce on 15.1.2013. It was further alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid cheque was returned by the clearing bank on the ground “drawer signature differ” and both the bank had charged the cheque bouncing charges from her without her fault despite the fact that she had sufficient balance in her account.

     The complainant lodged her complaint through net on 17.1.2013 with the OP but the issue was not resolved. Then the complainant filed an RTI application with OP but no satisfactory reply was given by the OP .  The Complainant alleged that the act of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and prayed for the reversal of the charges levied alongwith damages and litigation charges.

       OP has contested the complaint and had filed its W.S.  It has denied any deficiency on its part.  Para No. 3 of the reply on merits of the W.S. is relevant for the disposal of this complaint and is being reproduced as under: -

3. That the contents of the paragraph 3 of the complaint are matter of record and hence need no reply.  However, it is wrong and denied that both the banks had charged the charges without any fault of the complainant inspite of the facts that the complainant have sufficient balance to pass the cheque.  It is submitted that the signatures on the cheque drawn by the complainant were differing from the sample signature available in the records of the answering Respondents and therefore the cheque was returned and consequently charges were levied on the account of the complainant for dis-honouring of the impugned cheque on account of difference in signatures.  It is submitted that the Respondent No. 1 is a Back Office  cum service Branch and is acting as a Back Office for inward clearing for cheques drawn on Branches of Punjab National Bank and presented by other banks situated in Delhi and NCR on behalf of their constituents.

     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

     In order to prove his case complainant has placed on record additional evidence by way of affidavit with which she has annexed the original cheques in question as Annexure A (colly)  She has also placed on record the coy of the circular relating to CTS system.

     In response to the addition evidence filed by the complainant counsel for the OP has also placed on record the counter evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. B R Birdi, Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank and has also placed on record the specimen signature sheet of the complainant maintained in the bank.

     We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

     The counsel for the OP has contended that since signatures on the cheques image and the signature as available on the system did not tally, hence the cheque was returned with reason “Drawer Signature differ”.

     The counsel for the Complainant on the other hand alleged that the OP had failed to place on record the images of the cheques to prove its case.

     Neither of the parties apart from their bare statements on oath has examined any handwriting expert to prove its case.  Complaint filed u/s 12 of the CP Act are decided on the basis of the affidavits/documents of the parties.  Where, however there are facts which need determination by means of elaborate evidence and cross examination of witnesses, the matter cannot be decided by this Forum.  The present one is such a case where elaborate evidence is required to be led on the record to prove the difference or otherwise of the signature appearing on the cheque in question.  In that view of the matter we are unable to hold any deficiency in service on the part of the OP in returning the cheque in question with the remarks signature differ.

     While dismissing the complaint as not maintainable, we reserve the right of the complainant to approach the appropriate and court to seek their remedy.

          Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

          Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................

(NIPUR CHANDNA)   (DR. VIKRAM DABAS)       (RAKESH KAPOOR)                                         MEMBER                                   MEMBER                        PRESIDENT