BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 536 of 10.09.2015 Date of Decision: 30.08.2016.
Inderjit Singh aged about 31 years son of S. Jaswant Singh, resident of House No.7143, St. No.14, New Janta Nagar, Opp. Maggar Di Chakki, Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
- Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, PNB House, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017 through its Chief Manager/Manager.
- Punjab National Bank, Model Town Branch, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH. KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Prabhjot Singh Sachdeva, Advocate.
For Ops : Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by pleading that he is having savings account No.0304000400001370 with Ops. Rs.44,500/- were borrowed by complainant for domestic needs from one Avtar Singh son of Shri Sher Singh, resident of House No.63, G.T. Road, Roshan Market, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. In order to discharge his legal liability, complainant issued cheque bearing No.536742 dated 09.06.2015 of amount of Rs.44,500/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Model Town Branch, Ludhiana in the name of Axis Bank in account of said Avtar Singh. That cheque was presented by Avtar Singh and the same was returned dishonoured with remarks, “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 12.06.2015. However, the complainant was having sufficient funds in his account on 12.06.2015. So due to negligence of Ops, the cheque was received returned with above said remarks. Complainant submitted number of requests and even visited office of OP2 many times, but to no effect. Vide email dated 17.06.2015, Ops claimed that reason for return of the cheque unpaid was, “Signature Differ”. Ops kept on delaying the matter by making whimsical and illogical excuses. Avtar Singh served a legal notice dated 25.06.2015 through counsel Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate and thereafter, a compromise was arrived at between the complainant and said Avtar Singh, as per which Rs.55,000/- were paid by complainant to Avtar Singh in lieu of the contracted loan of Rs.44,500/-. Rs.10,500/- had to be paid by complainant to said Avtar Singh as notice charges, overdraft charges etc. This amount of Rs.10,500/- had to be paid to Avtar Singh due to negligence on the part of Ops. By pleading deficiency in services on the part of Ops, prayer made for refund of the amount deducted from account of complainant for dishonouring the cheque along with amount of Rs.10,500/- paid in excess by complainant to said Avtar Singh as aforesaid. Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, inconvenience, frustration, mental agony even claimed.
2. In joint written statement filed by Ops, it is admitted that the complainant was having savings account with Ops and that complainant issued cheque bearing No.536742 dated 09.06.2015 of amount of Rs.44,500/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Model Town branch, Ludhiana in name of Axis Bank in the Credit Card Account of Sh. Avtar Singh. Admittedly, cheque in question was presented by said Avtar Singh, but cheque returned dishonoured with remarks, “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 12.06.2015. Admittedly, complainant was having sufficient amount in his account for honouring of the said cheque on that day. In fact there was inadvertent, bonafide mistake on the part of dealing official of PNB, RCC Branch, Jalandhar. The dealing official was to affix the memo of “Signature Differs”. So return of the cheque was inevitable. On comparison of signature of complainant on cheque in question with his signature on specimen signature sheet difference of signatures was found. Comparison of signatures required for honouring or dishonouring of cheque and as such, dishonouring of the cheque was quite proper. Bonafide error on the part of dealing bank official cannot be termed as negligence on the part of bank official. Ops vide email dated 17.06.2015 correctly informed complainant the reason of return of the cheque as “Signature Differs”. Each and every other averment of complaint denied by praying for dismissal of complaint.
3. Complainant to prove his case, tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 as well as Ex. CX1/1 & Ex. CX1/2 and then his counsel closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, Sh. Raj Kumar, Officer, Punjab National Bank tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and then closed evidence.
5. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments heard. Record gone through carefully.
6. From the pleadings of the parties as well as affidavits EX. CA and EX. RA as well as after going through cheque Ex. C1 (also exhibited as EX. C2) = EX. R1 and memo Ex. R2, it is made out that cheque of Rs.44,500/- drawn on Punjab National Bank was issued by complainant on 09.06.2015 for payment through Axis Bank in credit card no.4514570001382699. That cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds vide memo Ex. R2. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, despite the fact that complainant was having sufficient amount in his account for honouring the said cheque. So dishonouring of the cheque certainly was illegal because remarks, “Insufficient Funds” were incorrectly recorded. Copy of notice Ex. C4 along with compromise Ex. C6 has been produced on record by complainant to establish that on account of dishonouring of the said cheque, Sh. Avtar Singh issued legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for calling upon the complainant to pay Rs.44,500/- in 15 days, failing which to face a criminal complaint. After issue of that notice Ex. C4, compromise Ex. C6 was arrived at as per which complainant had to pay Rs.55,000/- to said Avtar Singh including the principal amount of Rs.44,500/- + amount of Rs.10,500/- as notice charges, over draft charges etc. In view of this, it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that complainant suffered financial loss of Rs.10,500/- and even suffered mental agony due to dishonouring of the cheque. However, when the complainant contacted Ops, through email, then he received response Ex. C7 dated 17.06.2015 to the effect that the cheque was returned on 12.06.2015 with wrong memo containing remarks of insufficient funds. That wrong memo was due to oversight by the official of the bank because actually return should have been for the reason that signature differs. It is made out from contents of Ex. C7 and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that bonafide mistake on the part of official of Ops was there. However, signature of complainant was different on the cheque in question vis-à-vis his signature on the specimen sheet Ex. R3 and as such, it is vehemently contended that dishonouring of the cheque was bound to be there due to difference of signature.
7. After going through specimen signature card Ex. R3, it is made out that initially specimen signature of complainant Inderjeet Singh were in running hand, but on the cheque Ex. R1 = Ex. C1, these signatures of complainant Inderjeet Singh were different. Rather the signature on cheque Ex. C1 = Ex. R1 written as if all letters of word Inderjeet Singh were in capital letters. However, on the specimen card word ‘I’ and ‘S’ alone were capital letters, but the other letters ‘n d e r j e e t’ were in small letters. So difference of signatures could have been attributed the cause for dishonouring of the cheque. Even if such mistake on the part of bank official was there, despite that complainant had to suffer and as such, complainant entitled for compensation for mental harassment of amount of Rs.4,000/- at least. Complainant has to file this complaint by bearing litigation expenses and as such, he is entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.
8. Fee of a legal notice cannot be Rs.10,000/-, is the submission of Sh. V.K. Gupta, Advocate and as such, if complainant paid hefty amount of Rs.10,000/- as per alleged compromise Ex. C6, then same does not make any difference because fault also is on the part of complainant in putting signature on the cheque in different tone and tenor namely capital letters, despite the fact that he submitted specimen signatures in small letters except the initial letters of words ‘I’ and ‘S’. Realizing the position of difference of signature on the cheque vis-a-vis signature on the specimen card, complainant submitted fresh specimen signatures Ex. R5 on 15.06.2015 and as such, it is obvious that complainant himself was aware as if the cheque issued by him has different signature than those of the submitted specimen signature by him with bank. For that mistake/fault on the part of complainant, lesser compensation for mental harassment allowed than the amount alleged to be actually paid through compromise Ex. C6.
9. In case title as State Bank of Mysore & another Vs K. Vasanth Kumar & another II (2006) CPJ 345 (NC), it has been held that when dishonouring of the cheque takes place due to mistake of issuing bank, resulting in dishonouring of the cheque, then same is an act of deficiency in service. Facts of the reported case in this respect are identical to the facts of the present case and as such, after holding deficiency in service, above compensation awarded by keeping in view fault of complainant also.
10. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed by granting compensation for mental harassment of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only). Litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against Ops. Payment of these amounts be made by the Ops to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Karnail Singh) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:30.08.2016.
Gobind Ram.
