Delhi

StateCommission

A/548/2015

SHARDA BHAGAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

        Date of Decision:21.02.2019

 

First Appeal-548/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 06.10.2015 passed in Complainant Case No. 278/20131227/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi)

 

Sharda Bhagat,

CA-63 A, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

1.       Chief Manager, Back Office,

Punjab National Bank, Pahar Ganj,

D.B. Gupta Road, Delhi-110005.

 

2.       Chairman,

Punjab National Bank,

Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi-110066.

 

.….Respondents

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.      Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.       This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) wherein prayer is made for setting aside order dated 6.10.15 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in CC No.278/13 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been dismissed.

 

 

2.       Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are as under:

Appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act stating therein that he had been maintaining Savings Bank Account with respondent/OP bank i.e. Punjab National Bank at Rana Partap Bagh, Delhi-07.  Appellant/complainant had issued a cheque No.309648 dated 14.1.13 for a sum of Rs.2 lacs in her own favour and had deposited the same in her account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pitampura, Delhi on 15.1.13.  It was alleged that aforesaid cheque was returned by respondent/OP bank on the ground “drawer signature differ”.  The appellant/complainant had lodged a complaint on 17.1.13 with respondent/OP.  However, her problem was not sought.  It was alleged that there was no reason for not honouring the cheque.  The appellant/complainant had filed a RTI application but no satisfactory reply was given. It was alleged that both the banks i.e. respondent/OP bank as well as Oriental Bank of Commerce had charged the charges for dishonouring of cheque despite there was sufficient amount in her bank account.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of respondent/OP, prayer was made for the reversal of the charges levied along with damages and litigation cost.

3.       The complaint was contested by respondent/OP by filing written statement.  It was stated that signatures on the cheque drawn by the appellant/complainant were different from the sample signatures available in the record of the respondent/OP and, therefore, the cheque was returned and consequently charges were levied on appellant/complainant for dishonouring of the cheque in question on account of difference in signatures.  It was alleged that Shri D.S. Magrothia, concerned officer of the respondent/OP had compared the signatures on the cheque with the image of cheque and signatures available in the system were not talling so the cheque was returned unpaid with the reason “drawer signature differ”.  It was alleged that as per banking principle, the cheque was returned owing to difference in signatures.  A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.       Both the parties filed evidence in the form of affidavits.  After hearing the parties, the Ld. District Forum held as under:

“Neither of the parties apart from their bare statements on oath has examined any handwriting expert to prove its case.  Complaints 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.” 

5.       Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.

6.       It is contended that the respondent/OP had earlier passed the cheques issued by the appellant/complainant with the similar signatures in clearing.  It is contended that respondent/OP failed to produce the scanned copy of the cheque on which signatures were different from signatures available in the record of the account holder.  It is contended that in these circumstances, District Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint.

7.       On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent/OP has argued that there was sufficient evidence available in the record i.e. copy of the cheque which was returned in original and the specimen signature of the appellant/complainant maintained in the bank record. It is contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent/OP. It is further contended that it is not the case of the appellant/complainant that any damage has been caused to her on return of the cheque.  It is contended that returning charges which were deducted by the concerned branch of respondent/OP has also been paid to appellant/complainant.  It is contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8.       We have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

9.       In the present case, it is categorically stated in the affidavit of Sh. B.R. Birdi, Senior Manager of respondent/OP bank that the signatures on cheque in question were not matching with the signature available on the specimen signature sheet available with the bank record and due to said reason, the cheque was returned. Further it is not the case of the appellant/complainant that any loss or injury has been caused to her. There is nothing on record to show that the officer of the bank working in respondent/OP bank at the relevant time had acted in a negligent manner. The allegations of appellant/complainant that appellant/complainant has suffered a monetary loss of Rs.373/- as the charges were deducted by the concerned branches of bank have also been credited in the account of appellant/complainant. The same is also not denied by Counsel appearing for appellant/complainant. There is nothing on record that there was any malafide intention on the part of the official of the bank who had decided to dishonor the cheque. Considering the stand of respondent/OP, same was done by way of prudence and for the safety of customer.

10.     Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, no illegality is seen in the impugned order.  The District Forum has rightly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent/OP

11.     Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.

12.     A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)​

PRESIDENT

(Salma Noor)​

MEMBER