BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.266 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 15.07.2019

      Date of Decision: 22.11.2023

Mr.Tarsem Singh Ghotra aged 70 years son of Sh. Shaya Singh resident of 51, Dashmesh Avenue, Street No.2, Jalandhar (Punjab)

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. SCO-34 Urban Estate,           Phase-II Branch, Jalandhar.

 2.      The General Manager, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla        Complex, Mumbai-400051.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. J. S. Sodhi, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Y. V. Rishi, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant sold his property in New York. The son of the complainant namely Jasvinder Singh Ghotra who is stationed in New York forwarded a cheque of $20,000/- bearing cheque number 9831820414 dated 19.10.2018 being part of the sale amount. The said cheque was Drawn on Chase Bank and payable at New York. The complainant deposited the said cheque with Urban Estate Branch of OP No.1 for clearance on 16.11.2018. The said cheque was however, returned back as the Branch Manager did not sign the forwarding. The same cheque was again presented by the bank branch for clearance but to utter shock of the complainant the said cheque was not honoured and the complainant never received any proceeds of the said cheque. Though the complainant had not committed any fault yet a sum of Rs.2721.50 was deducted from his account as cheque return charges. The enquiries revealed that Chase Bank were treating the cheque as altered cheque. Repeated requests from the complainant to provide the copy of the cheque and the reason for the Chase Bank to consider the said cheque as altered be provided. The OPs did not provide the said copy. Subsequently, the complainant learnt that in the most negligent and irresponsible manner, the officials of OP No.1 while stamping the said cheque put the stamp of the bank on the name of the complainant and also endorsed some number on the original Cheque. This stamping and endorsement resulted in the cheque being treated as altered and the Chase Bank refused to honour the said cheque. The complainant then contacted his son who after skipping his job made repeated visits to the Drawee of the cheque and was able to get a fresh cheque from the original purchaser of his property. The entire such transaction cost a sum of $650.00 to the complainant. Out of the said 650$, $150.00 was paid as fresh attorney charges and $500.00 as legal fee to the Legal Attorney. On repeated requests by the complainant photo copy of the said cheque was provided by OP No.1 to the complainant in the month of April, 2019 and since then the complainant is repeatedly approaching their office for redressal of his grievance. Instead of undoing the wrong done to the complainant, the complainant was harassed and ridiculed. The complainant who is of about 70 years of age suffered great mental and physical harassment at the hands of OPs and staff of OPs for no fault of his. The complainant had engaged the services of the OPs and is thus a consumer and he has been wronged. Firstly the complainant was slapped a charge of Rs.2721.50 for no fault of his, which is totally illegal and unwarranted. Secondly the cheque was wrongly stamped resulting it being dishonoured. The complainant had to pay a sum of $650.00 which amounts to Rs.44,200/- at the current rate, Complainants son had skipped his job for three days to get fresh cheque which cost him a sum of Rs. 40,800/- in loss of salary. The current rate of $ is approximately Rs. 68.00 per dollar which was at Rs.72.00 on the day when the cheque was presented for collection. The complainant has suffered huge mental agony and loss due to this illegal Act by the Respondent/OP. The cop got served a legal notice to OPs dated 24.04.2019, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.44,200/- equivalent to $650, towards the cost incurred, Rs. 40,800/- towards loss of salary, Rs.80,000/- as difference of the price of dollar and Rs.2721.50 wrongly charged for dishonor of cheque. Thus, total amount of Rs.1,67,721.50 along with interest @18% per annum to the complainant for the damages. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in as much as there is no negligence or any deficiency of service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. It is further averred that the Chase Bank is a necessary party since they have wrongly and against regular banking practice deficiency in service-honoured the cheque in question. The complaint deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that the present complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and it is an attempt to waste precious time of this Forum. The same has been filed by the complainant with a malafide intention to avail undue pecuniary benefit. The complaint is thus liable to dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further averred that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He has presented a distorted and twisted version of facts and has deliberately withheld true vital facts. The complainant with malafide intentions concocted false facts and attributed absolutely false allegations against OPs to make unlawful gains. The complainant is not entitled to any relief under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The true fact is that complainant deposited cheque bearing No.9831820414 dated 19/10/2018 amounting to $20,000/- (US Dollar Twenty Thousand) drawn on Chase Bank payable at New York with OP No.1. The said cheque was stamped with OP name as per standard banking practice of putting special crossing stamp collection of it's proceeds from the payee bank. The said cheque was sent for collection through Wells Fargo under their FCS arrangement on 10/12/2018, vide reference number FCCSXA101218006. The said cheque was returned on 18/12/2018 by Payee Bank with the reason 'Altered/fictitious’. However, it was not apparent from said cheque as to how and why it has been treated as altered/fictitious by the Payee Bank so investigation was made by OPs with Chase Bank. The Opposite parties was surprised to find that said cheque has been in a wrongful manner returned by Chase Bank by wrongly treating the mandatory crossing stamp of ICICI Bank Ltd. over it as alteration in name of beneficiary. Whereas the special crossing stamp of bank and name of beneficiary is clearly visible as different over it. The name of beneficiary is in no manner reflected to be altered on it. The special crossing stamp is mandatory requirement for clearance and payment of cheque amount by the payee bank. The payee bank is well aware of it and still in a wrongful manner returned the cheque as altered. The complainant was appraised with the true state of affairs but instead of taking the matter with Chase Bank, New York he has wrongly made allegation against the OPs. As a good service gesture OPs reversed entire cheque collection charges by giving credit to his mar account on 28/05/2019 and duly informed the same to complainant. It is clarified that account of complainant was debited with correspondent bank return charges for INR Rs.2131.20 alongwith cheque return charges of charges were refunded to complainant as good customer service by OPs by crediting his account with Rs.2675.54 on 28/05/2019. The difference of Rs.45.66 is due to difference in exchange price of Indian Rupee and Dollar. The OPs in no manner is liable for wrongful acts of Chase Bank and there is no deficiency, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. It is further averred that complainant is barred by his own acts, conduct and admissions from filing the present complaint and claiming relief as prayed by him. The complainant has not taken up the matter with Chase Bank who has wrongly and in an illegal manner dishonored the cheque. The present complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant had wrongly dragged the OPs into unnecessary, uncalled and unwarranted litigation with ulterior motive to extract money from the OPs. On merits, It is admitted that the complainant deposited cheque bearing no.9831820414 dated 19.10.2018 amounting to $20000 (U. S. Dollar) drawn on Chase Bank payable at New York with the OP No.1. It is also admitted that the cheque was sent for collection, but was returned on 18.12.2018 by payee bank with the reason ‘altered/ficticious’.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is admitted fact that the complainant deposited cheque bearing no.9831820414 dated 19.10.2018 amounting to $20000 (U. S. Dollar) drawn on Chase Bank payable at New York with the OP No.1. The complainant has proved on record the copy of cheque Ex.C-1. It is also admitted that the cheque was sent for collection, but was returned on 18.12.2018 by payee bank with the reason ‘altered/ficticious’. The endorsement has been proved by the complainant Ex.C-2. The complainant has alleged that Rs.2721.50 was deducted from his account as return charges. The letter has been proved as Ex.C-3. The complainant has grouse that for no fault of the complainant, the complainant had to suffer mental harassment, had to contact his son for getting another cheque from the original purchaser of the property and he had spent 650$ for all transaction. The complainant has alleged the fault of the OPs whereas the OPs have alleged there was no fault of OP. Ex.C-2 shows that a stamp was put by the OP No.1 on the cheque, which was returned, with the reason of altered/fictitious. As per submission of the OP it is mandatory for crossing stamp of ICICI Bank Ltd. over the cheque but the Chase Bank has wrongly declared it fictitious. He has also referred the backside of the cashier’s cheque Ex.C-1, where the meaning of alteration has been given. Perusal of this endorsement shows that it is written‘Security features on this document include a Micro-Print Endorsement Line, Watermark and Visible Fibers. Absence of these features may indicate alteration’. Meaning thereby that apart from other reasons, absence of these features may indicate the alteration. As per this endorsement, these are not the only reasons to indicate alteration. Section 77 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 defines the negligence and liability of the banker when the cheque is returned after presentation with the bank for payment. Section 77 of the Negotiable Instrument Act reads as under:-

                   ‘When a bill of exchange, accepted payable at a specified        bank, has been duly presented there for payment and        dishonoured, if the banker so negligently or improperly keeps,          deals with or delivers back such bill as to cause loss to the       holder, he must compensate the holder for such loss.’

7.                The contention of the counsel for the OP is that chase bank has not been made party and the same is necessary party as the cheque was returned without any reason wrongly by the Chase Bank and it is the bank only who can explain the reasons. But this contention of the OPs is not tenable. It has been held by the Hon’ble Kerala State Commission, in O. P. No.93 of 2001, decided on 11.02.2010, titled as ‘V. S. A. Subramaniam and Anr. Vs. General Manager International Banking Division, Vijaya Bank and Anr.’ that ‘Cheque drawn on abudhabi commercial bank entrusted to OP bank by complaint for collection - Amount not credited to account of the complaint - Contention of the opposite party that cheque was lost in transit- Negligence and deficiency in service was evident in handling the transaction by the OPs - Initiating proceedings by the complainants against a foreign national residing abroad and against an institution having no branches in India was not easily possible for the persons of the status of the complainants Complainant entitled to proceeds of the cheque OPs directed to pay Rs.2,50,000 with interest @12% p.a. and costs of Rs.7,500 Complaint allowed.’ It has been clarified by the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Commission that initiating proceedings by the complainants against a foreign national residing abroad and against an institution having no branches in India was not easily possible. In the present case also Chase Bank has no branch in India and the complainant is residing in India, therefore, it is not easily possible for the complainant to make the bank party which has no branch in India. Chase Bank is necessary party only if the matter cannot be adjudicated without the presence of the bank. In the present case, documents are on file and the matter can be adjudicated without the presence of the Chase Bank. In para no.4 of the written statement, the OP has alleged that the cheque was stamped with OP name as per standard banking practice of putting special crossing stamp collection of its proceeds from the payee bank. It has further been mentioned in the written statement that since it was not apparent from the said cheque as to how and why it has been treated as altered/fictitious by the payee bank, so, investigation was made by the OPs with Chase Bank. Thereafter, it has been mentioned that the Chase Bank has wrongly treated the mandatory crossing stamp of ICICI Bank Ltd. over it as alteration in the name of beneficiary. It has been mentioned by the OP that on investigation, it came to their notice that the Chase Bank has wrongly treated the mandatory crossing stamp of ICICI Bank Ltd. as fictitious, but there is no document on the file produced by the OP to show that any such reasons was given by the Chase Bank for the return of the document. However, Perusal of the cheque Ex.C-2/OP No.1&2/1 shows that there was overlapping the alphabet ‘a’ of the surname of the complainant i.e. Ghotra. In the cheque, there is specific column, where it has been mentioned that ‘do not write outside the box’, but the stamp and the number has been mentioned outside the box i.e. on the cheque itself. There is a letter of the bank i.e. OP, which is the reply to the legal notice Ex.CX. It has been mentioned in the reply to the notice that there is a standard practice of putting special crossing stamp on the face of the cheque and inadvertently, the stamp seems to have overlap the last alphabet of surname and the same was treated as altered/fictitious. As per the guidelines of the RBI, the specific precautions have been mentioned, which are required to be taken by the banks in CTS. It has been clarified that banks should exercise care while affixing stamps on the cheque forms, so that it does not interfere with the material portions such as date, payee's name, amount, and signature. The use of rubber stamps, etc., should not overshadow the clear appearance of these basic features in image. It is necessary to ensure that all essential elements of a cheque are captured in an image during the scanning process and banks /customers have to exercise appropriate care in this regard. In this, there is a specific mention of the fact that the stamps on the cheque forms should not interfere with the material points such as date, payee’s name etc., whereas in the cheque Ex.C-2, the name of the complainant i.e. surname of the complainant has been overlapped by the stamp put by the OP. Thus, it is proved that the cheque has been returned with the remarks altered/fictitious and the name of complainant has been overlapped by the negligence of the OP. 

8.                The OP has already deposited Rs.2721/- against cheque returned on 24.12.2018 and intimation to this effect was also given to the complainant by the OP vide Ex.C-3. The complainant has sought and demanded the difference of the dollar amount, but he has not produced on record any detail to show the cost of dollar at the relevant time. So, from the overall circumstances and facts of the case, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.44,200/- i.e. equivalent to $650 to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization. No proof towards loss of salary has been filed by the complainant, so the complainant is not entitled for this relief. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon           Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

22.11.2023                    Member                              President