O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1 The complainant sought compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of respondent for not honouring the cheque on the ground that the signatures differs.
2 The allegations in the complaint in brief are that she is having a savings bank account in the respondent bank and she issued an account payee cheque in favour of LIC for payment of premium for obtaining new policy and for existing policy. The respondent negligently without adopting minimum standard of care returned two cheques on the ground that cheques signatures differ. The respondent purposefully denied proper service and hence committed deficiency of service. Because of rejection of cheques the policy was lapsed. Her brother also made a complaint to the respondent bank with regard to the deficiency of service as such the respondent is taking vengeance. Due to the deficiency of service she suffered income tax benefits due to lapse of LIC policy. She was also charged processing fee etc. She suffered severe mental agony and strain because of the deficiency of service on the part of respondent bank. Thus she sought above said compensation.
3 The respondent bank filed its written version denying the material allegations attributed against them and further according to them, when the cheques came upon for clearance they gave written endorsement to the effect that the signatures of drawer differ. The complainant is bound to take due care in drawing and issuing cheques. Thus they are not at all liable for any deficiency of service on their part.
4 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent bank in returning two cheques issued by the complainant?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for compensation amount as sought by her?
7 Point No.1: In support of the case, the complainant filed her chief affidavit and got marked exhibits Exs. A1 to A8 which are G.P.A. given by the complainant, two bounced cheques, intimation memos, office copy of lawyer’s notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment. The complainant also filed chief affidavit of Narapureddy Prabhavathi, LIC Agent is treated as PW2. As against this evidence the respondent bank filed proof affidavit of its Assistant Manager who reiterated allegations in the counter and they exhibited Ex.B1 the statement of the accounts of the complainant.
8 Admittedly the complainant has savings bank account with the respondent bank. It is also not disputed about complainant issuing two cheques towards payment of premiums of LIC of India, Kakinada branch and it is also not disputed the two cheques were not honoured on the ground the signatures of the drawer differ. Here the grievance of the complainant is that a similar complaint was lodged by her brother with the respondent bank when two cheques were dishnoured and now its only with vengeance against them, the respondent bank returned the cheque without taking any proper care. It is the prerogative of the banks to return the cheques if they find any difference in the signatures available on the cheque and that of the specimen signatures submitted to them at the time of opening account. They can also dishonour the cheque on the ground of not sufficient funds and other situations. Here in this particular case the respondent bank refused to honour the cheques issued by the complainant on the ground the signatures of the drawer differ. The respondent bank acted as per the rules and hence no motive can be attributed against them for not honoring the cheque. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for opposite party the complainant must be careful while drawing and issuing cheques so as not to attract technicality of this nature. Thus under these circumstances I do not see any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this point is answered against the complainant in favour of the opposite party.
9 Point No.2: In view of the discussion and finding rendered under point No.1 the complainant is not entitled for any amount. Thus this point is also answered accordingly.
10 In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 20th day of January, 2015
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant :
PW1: Sri Chappidi Swaminadha Rao
PW2: Smt. Narapureddy Prabhavathi, Agent of LIC of India, Kakinada
For opposite party :
RW1: Sri L. Yerrareddy, Assistant Manager, Andhra Bank, Kakinada
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex. A1 09.03.2012 General Power of Attorney [Photostat copy]
Ex.A2 30.03.2011 Dishonoured cheque [original]
Ex.A3 02.04.2011 Dishonoured cheque [original]
Ex.A4 18.04.2011 Intimation of dishonoured cheque memo issued by LIC of India to the complainant [original]
Ex.A5 25.04.2011 Intimation of dishonoured cheque memo issued by LIC of India to the complainant [original]
Ex.A6 10.10.2011 Office copy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party [original]
Ex.A7 Postal receipt [original]
Ex.A8 Acknowledgment [original]
For opposite party:
Ex.B1 Statement of Accounts issued by the opposite party [original]
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
