Complaints filed on: 06-05-2022

                                                      Disposed on:20-01-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

#201, 202, 1^st Floor, Indian Red Cross Building Complex,

Ashoka Road, Tumakuru-572 101. 

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF Janaury, 2023

P R E S E N T

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 87 OF 2022

Sri.T.K.Ranganath, S/o Kariyanna,

Sriranga Nivasa, Madugiri Road, Sira

Gate, Tumkur District.

……….Complainant

(By Sri. T.Ramaiah, Adv.,)

V/s

Canara Bank, Bangalore Krishi Bhavan,

Hudson Circle & Others,

Ashoka Nagara, Tumkuru District.

3rd main road, Byralingappa road, Chikkasandra,

T Dasarahalli Post, Bengalore,

Adhar No.407914337015.

4th cross, Opp B.B.M.P. T Dasarahalli Post,

Bengalore, AdharNo.350891090203

(OP No.1& 2  by Sri.Mohamed Afroze Ahamed  Adv.,)

((OP No.3 & 4 – Served absent)

:O R D  E R :

BY SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH -  LADY MEMBER

1.       This complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of consumer Protection Act 2019 against the Opposite Parties with the prays to direct the Opposite parties to pay the Rs.90,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of withdrawal of amount and prayed Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.15,000/- for litigation costs.

2.       The 1^st Opposite Party is T.C.S Claims/OSC/ A.C. Section Helpdesk, Canara Bank, Bangalore (herein after called as OP No.1). The 2^nd Opposite Party is Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Tumkur (herein after called as OP No.2). The 3^rd Opposite Party is one Shri Gopinath S/o Nagaraju, Tumkur (herein after called as OP No.3) and 4^th Opposite Party is one Shri Praveen.G.R (herein after called as Op No.4)

3.       It is the case of the complainant that the complainant made a agreement for of sale of property for Rs.39,00,000/- with OP No.3 and 4. OP No.3 and 4 were agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh Only) through cheque No.000546 of west branch office of ICICI Bank, Jalahalli, Bangalore on 15.02.2019, Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) through cheque No.964375 of branch office, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, State Bank of India, Bangalore on 15.02.2019 and Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand Only) through cash to the complainant and OP No.3 and 4 were paid total amount Rs.2,50,000/- through cheques and cash in the time of agreement and also agreed to pay remaining balance of Rs.36,00,000/- in the time of registration of the property within the three months from the agreement. The complainant has been given cheque bearing No.600996 with his sign for Rs.90,000/- dated 03.01.2021 of OP No.2 to the OP No.3. The sale agreement between the complainant and OP No.3 and 4 was cancelled on 29.12.2021. The OP No.3 did not return the cheque bearing No.600996 in the time of the cancellation of the agreement and the said cheque was cleared/honoured on 18.01.2022 in the office of OP No.1 by presenting through Branch office, Karnataka Bank, Mahalingpur Bagalkot and same amount was withdrawn by the OP No.3, OP No.1 has passed/honoured the cheque bearing No.600996 which was corrected the date of cheque as 03.01.2022 instead of 03.01.2021, which was forged and also which was barred by time limits. Hence, this complaint.

4.       After sufficient service of notice by this commission OP No.3 and 4 remained absent. OP No.1 and 2 were appeared through their common counsel and field their common version.

5.       OP No.1 and 2 were admitted that the complainant is their customer having savings Bank Account in the OP No.2, but denied the all allegations as false, baseless and created story made by the complainant towards the OP No.1 and 2.  OP No.1 and 2 were submitted that, the OP No.2 has issued the cheque book vide cheque number starting from 000344600991 to 000344601015 to the complainant on 08.09.2021 and alleged cheque issued by the complainant was prior to the cheque book issued. Further OP No.1 and 2 were submitted that, the cheque No.600996 was received for collection under clearing through Karnataka Bank Ltd., and the same is withdrawing on 18.01.2022 under Branch Code No.469 for a sum of RS.90,000/- and there is a correction in respect of the date of instruments and counter sign of the complainant.  Further, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 were submitted that, they are working at Financial Institutions which runs with public money and they have not any personal interest occurred to help the OP Nos. 3 & 4 and further submitted that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint against OP Nos. 1 & 2.     

6.       Complainant has filed his affidavit with ten documents and one Smt.Smitha.G Kulakarani, Manager of OP No.2 has filed her affidavit on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 with Seven documents.

7.       We have heard the arguments from both sides and with written brief of the complainant and points would arise for determination as under:

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2. Is complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

8.        Our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Negative

Point No.2: As per final order for the below

:R E A S O N S:

9.       The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has made the agreement for sale of property with OP No.3 and 4 and same was cancelled on 29.12.2021. To prove the same the complainant has filed the copy of the sale agreement dated 15.02.2019 which was not registered and copy of cancellation of sale agreement dated 29.12.2021. There is no dispute regarding agreement and its cancellation, there is only dispute is regarding passing forged cheque by OP No.1 & 2 towards the OP No.3. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has given the cheque bearing No.600996 dated 03.01.2021, with his sign for Rs.90,000/- on behalf of Op No.3 in advance. On perusing the copy of unregistered sale agreement dated 15.02.2021, it reflects details about agreed amount, paid amount and payable balance amount by the OP No.3 and 4 towards the complainant. The copy of unregistered sale agreement establishing that, OP No.3 and 4 agreed to purchase the property for consideration amount of Rs.39,00,000/- and agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) through cheque No.000546 of west branch office of ICICI Bank, Jalahalli, Bangalore on 15.02.2019, Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) through cheque No.964375 of branch office, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, State Bank of India, Bangalore on 15.02.2019 and Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) through Cash to the complainant.  Also agreed to pay remaining balance of Rs.36,00,000/- at the time of registration of the property  and within the three months from the agreement. Neither copy of unregistered sale agreement nor sale cancellation deed are not showing any description about the cheque No.600996 for Rs.90,000/- and the complainant has failed to prove that he has given the alleged cheque to Op No.3 for particular purpose of the above sale transaction.  Further the complainant has submitted that he has given the advance cheque dated 03.01.2021 of OP No.2 bearing No.600996 for Rs.90,000/- on behalf of OP No.3, but the complainant has not recorded in the complaint or in affidavit about to whom he has given and particular date when he has given the alleged cheque.

10.     Further counsel for the complainant has argued that OP No.1 and 2 were cleared the cheque bearing No.600996 which was forged and which was barred the time limits. The OP No.1 and 2 were admitted that the date on the cheque was corrected but the OP Nos.1 & 2 submitted that, the correction was authenticated by signature of the complainant. The reply letter of the OP No.2 dated:03.02.2022 produced by the complainant proves that the same which has mentioned as “Cheque date alteration is authenticated by customer and they have attached cheque image”. By comparing signature below the correction of date on cheque, signature on cheque, on copy of unregistered sale deed, on complaint and affidavit, we have not found any difference in these signatures of the complainant. In the same time the complainant has not taken any steps to prove that the signature below the correction on cheque was forged and the complainant has not filed any document to prove the allegation of forgery. The complainant also did not file any criminal case against the OP No.3 or anyone for the forgery. The complainant has not made any allegation on OP No.4 in entire complaint.

11.     The counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 has argued that they have not done any deficiency in service in the clearance of cheque bearing No.600996. They have cleared the cheque as per the rules of the bank. Further, Counsel for OP No.1 and 2 argued that the OP No.2 has issued a cheque book in favour of the complainant on 08.09.2021 and the alleged cheque issued by the complainant is prior to the cheque book issued. To prove the same OP No.1 and 2 have produced the annexure 1 copy of the cheque book issue maintenance extract which is reflecting account number of complainant 2008220000883, name of the complainant, cheque start No.000344600991, Cheque End No.000344601015 and cheque book issued date was 08.09.2021 and same document is establishes that, cheque leaf bearing no.600996 was one of the cheque leaf in the above cheque book and also establishes that, it is not possible to the complainant to issue the cheque on 03.01.2021 to OP No.3 prior to issuance of cheque book from OP No.2 to the complainant. The complainant has not denied or objected the above argument of the OP No.1 and 2 and annexure-1 copy of the cheque book issue maintenance extract produced by the OP No.1 and 2.  Further counsel for OP No.1 and 2 argued that, they have cleared the cheque bearing No.600996 with date alteration authenticated by the customer and in the same time the complainant has not taken any steps to prove that the signature was not done by him and it was forged. Hence, we have not found any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2, 3, 4. Counsel for complainant has argued  that the cheque bearing No.600996 was presented before branch office, Karnataka Bank, Mahalingapura, Bagalkot.  But the complainant has not made the Karnataka Bank, Mahalingapura as a necessary party to prove the case. Hence, the complaint is also liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party to the complaint. Accordingly we pass the following order.

:ORDER:

Complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed without cost.

Send copy of this order to both parties at free of costs.