DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 540 of 26-11-2010

Decided on : 26-09-2011

1. Sri Guru Harikrishan Education Trust, Near Sports Stadium, Bathinda, through its Trustee & Authorised Representative Sh. Narinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

2. Sr. Guru Harikrishan Public School, Near Sports Stadium, Bathinda, through its Authorized Representative Sh. Narinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

    

   .... Complainants

Versus

The Bathinda Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Civil Lines, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.

..... Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Smt.. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainants : Sh. S.M. Goyal, counsel for the complainants

For the Opposite party : Sh. Harraj Singh, counsel for opposite party.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that complainant no. 1 is a Private Trust and complainant No. 2 is its School. The complainant Trust has bank account No. 202-308-1371 with the opposite party in the name of its school i.e. complainant No. 2. The said account can be operated only under the joint signatures of Secretary Sh. Harbans Singh Sandhu and Assistant Secretary Sh. Harmohinder Singh Mokha. Sh. Jaswinder Singh, the then Principal illegally misused and manipulated the cheque Nos. 029511 and 029512 and had managed to withdraw an amount of Rs. 19,10,177/- and Rs. 8,85,000/- respectively from the account of the complainants in connivance with the concerned official of opposite party. The cheque No. 029511 was prepared and manipulated by said principal in the name of “Yourself” whereas the cheque No. 029512 was prepared in the name of Jaswinder Singh, Principal. When the complainant came to know about the said misdeeds of Jaswinder Singh, they started inquiries and it transpired that opposite party has made above said payment out of the account of complainant school, against the banking rules & regulations and against the agreement between the parties. A bare perusal of cheque No. 029511 dated 27-11-2008 reveals that it was marked as “Payee's Account only” and same could only be credited in some account and no payment against the same could have been made. The opposite party in-connivance with the then Principal of school had issued the following demand drafts and pay orders :-

   i) DD for Rs. 10,000/- in favour of Aalmi Punjabi Virasat Foundation payable at Amritsar.

   ii) DD for Rs. 1,66,095/- in favour of The Standard Sports and Furniture Goods Workshop CIS Ltd., payable at Malout.

   iii) DD for Rs. 2,12,156/- in favour of The Standard Sports and Furniture Goods Workshop CIS Ltd., payable at Malout.

   iv) Pay order No. 032331 for Rs. 26,700/- in favour of Sohan Lal payable at Bathinda.

   v) Pay order No. 032332 for Rs.1,38,000/- in favour of Sohan Lal payable at Bathinda.

   vi) Pay order No. 032332 for Rs. 1,38,000/- in favour of Aggarwal Photostat payable at Bathinda.

   v) Pay order No. 032333 for Rs. 1,78,776/- in favour of Aeron Enterprises payable at Bathinda.

   vii) Pay order No. 032334 for Rs. 64,600/- in favour of Ravi Enterprises payable at Bathinda.

   viii) DD for Rs. 4,75,000/- in favour of Parduman Singh payable at Gurdaspur.

   ix) Pay order No. 032335 for Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of Jaswinder Singh payable at Bathinda.

   x) Pay order No. 032336 for Rs. 1,43,000/- in favour of Subash Mittal Printing Press, payable at Bathinda.

   xi) Pay order No. 032337 for Rs. 1,25,000/- in favour of Jaswinder Singh payable at Bathinda.

   xii) Pay order No. 032338 for Rs. 1,18,000/- in favour of Ravi Enterprises payable at Bathinda.

   No direction was given by the account holder/complainant under signatures of authorised person and as such the amount of demand drafts and pay orders were debited in the account of the complainants without valid and proper authority and instructions. As per the banking rules, no demand draft/pay orders could be issued against “Payee's Account only” cheque, but the opposite party had issued the demand drafts ignoring the rules and instructions. There are specific instructions that the account cannot be operated without two signatures of the account holders then how the Branch Manager of the opposite party allowed and ordered preparation of demand drafts/pay orders only under one signature. On the cheque No. 029512 dated 20-01-2009 the amount in words has been mentioned as “Seven Lacs and eighty five thousand only” (Rs. 7,85,000/-) wherein as figures the amount has been written as “Rs. 8,85,000/-, hence the said cheque could have not been passed, rather the opposite party should have returned the same or in the alternative should have asked the bearer to get the same corrected from the signatories. The complainant alleged that as per Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the amount is stated differently in figures and words, the amount stated in words should be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid though the complainant do not admit the validity or legality of cheque. The letter on the basis of which 12 demand drafts/pay orders were prepared, it has been mentioned that demand draft of Rs. 1,66,095/- and another of Rs. 2,12,156/- were to be sought in the name of the Standard Sports and Furniture Goods Workshop CIS Ltd., payable at Malout and in this way, two demand drafts were got issued in the name of the same person at the same time. Similarly two pay orders have been got prepared in the name of M/s. Ravi Enterprises and Jaswinder Singh each. The complainant wrote a letter/complaint No. SGHKS/TUE/2009 dated 24-03-2009 regarding the said illegal acts and misdeeds of the opposite party and its officials, but no reply of the same was given. Thereafter another letter No. SGHKS/Bank/2/2009 dated 15-12-2009 was written by the complainant to the opposite party in this regard and the opposite party through its Manager gave vague and baseless reply vide letter No. 396 dated 7-1-2010. However, the opposite party in the said letter had admitted the negligence of its officers in clear words, but opposite party did not credit any amount out of the amount of above said cheques in favour of the complainant. Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking direction to the opposite party to credit the above said account of the complainant with the amount which have been wrongly and without authority debited in the complainant's account and pay compensation and cost.

2. The opposite party filed its written reply and specifically denied that there was any connivance of officials of the opposite party with Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Principal. It has been pleaded that cheque Nos. 029511 and 029512 were issued under the stamp and signatures of Secretary Sh. H S Sandhu and Asttt. Secretary Sh. H S Mokha i.e. duly authorized and competent persons and the said cheques have been rightly honoured by the opposite party under bonafide impression. The letter regarding the issuance of demand drafts/pay orders is a genuine document and is issued under the stamp and signature of authorized and competent persons and the opposite bonafidely believing the same, issued the demand drafts and pay orders as per rules and regulations of the bank. It has been further pleaded that the payment of cheque No. 029512 has been bonafidely made to the tune of Rs. 8,85,000/- due to some inadvertence and accidental omission and there was no malafide on the part of opposite party. The opposite party prepared the demand drafts as per the instructions of the complainant and it is not the duty of the opposite party to check why the complainant got issued two demand drafts in favour of one person.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. During the pendency of the complaint, the opposite party has moved an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it is not maintainable as intricate and complicated questions of fact and law are involved and subject matter of the complaint is more than Rs. 25,00,000/-, but in this case, the complainant is seeking the relief of Rs. 19,10,177.00 + Rs. 8,85,000/- alongwith interest thereon @18% p.a., Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as cost and as such it exceeded the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant filed reply of application and pleaded that complainant has recovered/adjusted major amount from the Principal Jaswinder Singh, against the above said cheques who had withdrawn the amount in question through different pay orders and DDs against the cheques in question, in-connivance with concerned officials of the opposite party. Hence, only a sum of Rs. 45,000/- remains due to be recovered out of the same and as such, the complainant claims Rs. 45,000/- besides, compensation and cost from the opposite party.

   Thereafter the complainant filed an application for relinquishment of claim in the complaint regarding the actual amount of cheque Nos. 029511 and 029512 and instead of the same for limiting the claim to the extent of Rs. 45,000/- i.e. the amount now due out of the amount of said cheques i.e. actual loss besides claiming other reliefs on the ground that rest of the amount against the cheques in question debited by the opposite party, stands recovered/adjusted from the delinquent employee i.e. principal Jaswinder Singh. The opposite party filed reply of application and opposed the same.

   This Forum vide order dated 01-04-2011 held that complaint is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. The opposite party filed appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, against the said order of this Forum, which was dismissed and it has been held :-

   “..4..Admittedly, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Forum was made out.

   5. So far as the intricate and complicated questions of law and facts are concerned, in every case the question of law and facts are involved and only then the parties go to the learned District Forum. It is not that every case should be referred to the civil Court although such a plea is taken in almost every case.”

6. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party on the ground that account No. 202-308-1371 of Sri Guru Harkrishan Public School, Bathinda, is being operated under the joint signatures of Sh. Harbans Singh Sadhu and Sh. Harmohinder Singh Mokha, but the opposite party encashed two cheques bearing No. 029511 & 029512 under one signature. The complainant has written a letter dated 24-03-2009 Ex. C-2 to the opposite party which reads as under :-

   “...Reg. Misuse of Cheque SB No. 029511 and SB No. 029512

   1. Sri Guru Harkrishan Public School, Bathinda is maintaining A/c No. 202-308-1371 with you. The account is being operated under the joint signatures of Sh. Harbans Singh Sandhu and Sh. Harmohinder Singh Mokha. The above (payee a/c only) cheques were signed by the 1^st signatory Sh. Harbans Singh Sandhu in anticipation of receipt of 'bill' from the parties to avoid delay in payment. The 2^nd signatory Sh. Harmohinder Singh Mokha was to sign the cheque after filling the amount in the cheque on receipt of the 'bill' from the party. Both the cheques have been misused due to negligence on the part of the bank.

   2. Cheque No. 029511 : Payees A/c only' was not meant for issue of DDs. There was no endorsement on the cheque to issue DDs. The A/c is being operated under two signatures but the DDs have been issued on instruction from 'single' signatory and that too without use of the letter head of the school/without any letter number. This is gross violation of the operation of account under joint operation.

   3. Cheque No. 029512 “'Payees A/c only' cheque has been misused due to the carelessness of the bank. While misusing the signed cheque , the culprit had filled in “Rupees Seven Lakhs and Eighty five thousands only” in words but in figures the culprit wrote Rs. 8,85,000/-. To our utter disappointment, the payment of Rs. 8,85,000/- has been released to Jaswinder Singh though there was vast variation in amount written in 'Words' and 'Figures'. The catastrophe could have been avoided if the cheque was not passed for payment in view of the difference of amount 'Figures' and 'words'.

   4. The matter regarding misuse of the above two cheques came to the notice of the undersigned after having received the attested copies of the cheques as late as 24-02-09 from the bank on request. The culprit had not given the 'counter files/cheque book on one pretext or the other and also the bank did not supply the 'copy of account' after Oct 2008 on the pretext that the 'Principal' same culprit had instructed the bank not to give copy of account without his signatures. Needless to say that the 'principal was not authorized to issue any instructions to the bank since he is none of the operators of the account.

   5. The matter may kindly be investigated as to who requested/collected the DDs and how the cheques were passed inspite of glaring discrepancies in these.”

   When no response was received. The complainant wrote another letter dated 15^th December, 2009 Ex. C-3 to the opposite party intimating it that the management has contemplated to file a civil suite against the bank for compensation against damages caused to the school due to negligence on its part as the payment of the cheques could have been avoided for the reasons as enumerated in its earlier letter Ex C-2.

   In response to this letter, the opposite party wrote letter dated 07-01-2010 Ex. C-4 which reads as under :-

   “.......In response to your above said letter, it is requested that I have instructed concerned employee not to repeat the mistake and be careful while making any entry in your a/c in particular. The concerned employee has clarified that the mistake happened due to rush of work and he will not repeat it. We have also conveyed the matter to higher authorities. So please file this letter. This is for your kind consideration.”

7. As per aforesaid evidence, the complainant has proved that the opposite party has admitted negligence of its employee as the cheques in question have been passed by it without any authority but on the other hand, the opposite party has failed to produce any evidence to rebut this version of the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party has violated its own rules and regulations also. As per Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid is stated differently in figures and in words, the amount stated in words shall be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid whereas in the case in hand, the opposite party has passed cheque No. 029512 Ex. C-19 for Rs. 8,85,000/- whereas in words it has been mentioned on Ex. C-19 “Seven lakhs and eighty five thousand only” and this fact has been admitted by the opposite party in para 13 of its written reply. The opposite party has cleared the cheque in question blind fold by avoiding their own rules and regulations. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

8. Now the question arises as to what relief should be allowed to the complainant. The complainant has relinquished his claim and pleaded in his application dated 03-03-2011 that only Rs. 45,000/- remains due and rest of the amount against the cheques in question debited by the opposite party, stands recovered/adjusted from the delinquent employee i.e. Principal Jaswinder Singh. No such direction can be given by this Forum with regard to Rs. 45,000/- as the complainants can get that amount recovered from the persons in whose name the cheques were issued. In case of death of that person, the amount can be recovered from his legal representatives (LRs). As discussed above, since the act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, the complainant is entitled for some amount of compensation on account of mental harassment.

9. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

   The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

26-09-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member