Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 391.
Instituted on : 24.08.2018.
Decided on : 19.08.2019.
Varun Pal, age 31 years, s/o Sh. Satishpal R/o H.No.121, Nehru Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Punjab National Bank, Babra Mohalla, Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Surender Laura, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Manchanda, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is having a saving bank account no.3009000100188651 with the bank and on 03.06.2018, he issued a cheque bearing No.838103 of his above said account in favour of Sh. Krishan Pal. That on 18.06.2018, opposite party returned back the above said cheque without any sufficient cause and endorsed on the return memo –“Alteration requires drawer Authentication’ and charged illegally Rs.354/- from the complainant. That complainant requested the opposite party to reverse the charges as the complainant has sufficient amount in his account on that day and there was no other fault in cheque in question, but the respondent illegally not cleared the said cheque. That till date the bank has not reversed the charges in complainant’s account. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.354/- alongwith Rs.80,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the cheque no.838103 has been issued but there is alteration in the date which is altered to 3.6.2018 from 3.6.2017, which is apparent to the naked eye of every person. Thus cheque becomes stale after 3 months and changing of date from 3.6.2017 to 3.6.3018 requires authentication by the drawer being material alteration. The charges are debited by the system itself and no human role is there in debiting the amount.
That any material alteration on the body of instrument needs authentication, otherwise banker do not get protection under Section-10 of the N.I.Act. That the system charges itself as per policy and guidelines of the bank. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.01.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Through this complaint, complainant has submitted that he had issued a cheque in favour of Sh. Krishan Pal on dated 03.06.2018 amounting to Rs.3000/- and the same was returned by the respondent bank unpaid and an amount of Rs.354/- has been illegally deducted from his account by the opposite party whereas, he had sufficient balance in his account. On the other hand, contention of opposite party is that there is alteration in the cheque date which is altered to 3.6.2018 from 3.6.2017 and any material alteration on the body of instrument needs authentication otherwise banker do not get protection under Section-10 of the N.I.Act. That the system charges itself as per policy and guidelines of the bank.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that there was overwriting in the cheque on the year 2018 at digit 8 as is shown in copy of cheque Ex.R3. So the cheque was returned back as per rules of the bank. The respondent counsel argued that as per section 87 of the bank guidelines, “Any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against anyone who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties”. As such, an amount of Rs.354/- was rightly charged from the complainant. Ld. counsel also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in II(2004)CPJ330 titled as Tamilnad Merchantile Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. S.Nagarathinam & Ors. whereby Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “Bank not bound to honour defective cheque-Return of cheque not amount to deficiency in service”. Ld. counsel also placed on record copy of Cirular No.74.2017 and as per terms and conditions of this letter, cheque returning charges upto Rs.1 lac is Rs.300/-(Exclusive GST).
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the amount of Rs.354/- has rightly been charged from the complainant as per guidelines of the bank and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.08.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
