BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.376 of 2016

Date of Instt. 05.09.2016

Date of Decision: 13.06.2018

Bhushan Lal Narang S/o Sh. Pyara Lal R/o 720, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

The Branch Manager IndusInd Bank, The Mall Road Model Town, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Rahul Sharma, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Vijay Kant, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is a consumer for the IndusInd Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar and having A/c No.0045-C 81492-001. The complainant always keep huge balance in the said account. The complainant is a retired Principal from Ram Garhia College, Phagwara and having good reputation and status in the society. The complainant had applied for the Mithoot Security Ltd., issued vide application form No.31515877 and deposited one account payee cheque bearing No.893264 dated 07.04.2016 for Rs.1 Lac drawn on IndusInd Bank Ltd., Branch Jalandhar. The said cheque has been duly deposited with the Mithoot Security Ltd along with application form, and same has been presented for encashment by Mithoot Security Ltd with the OP. The OP has kept on the said cheque with itself without any reason. In the mean while, the issue has been opened by the Mithoot Security Ltd, but till date nothing has been heard from the Mithoot Security Ltd., whether they have allotted any security applied to the complainant. Surprisingly, enough on 29.06.2016 the complainant had received the above said cheque along with memo with the remarks “Drawer Signature Differs”. The copy of the application to the Mithoot Finance Ltd, copy of the account statement of the bank account and copy of the returned cheque and memo are also attached.

2. That the OP illegally and acting negligently dishonoured the cheque referred above and also kept the cheque with itself. The complainant due to the act and conduct of the OP deprived on the allotment of the securities applied for as a result, he has suffered a loss. Moreover, due to dishonour of the cheque referred above, inspite of sufficient fund, the complainant felt hurt, the complainant thereafter approached the bank and inquired about the reason for dishonour of the cheque, the concerned person did not listen genuine grievances of the complainant. It is worth while to mention here that the OP acted negligently by keeping the cheque, which was presented for encashment on 07.04.2016 till 28.06.2016 (more than two months) and thereafter returned the cheque with a wrong memo “drawer signature differs”. Due to the negligence of the OP, the complainant unable to get invested his amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and suffered a huge loss. The complainant having sufficient funds in the account to honour the said cheque. The complainant has rightly put his signature on the cheque referred above. The OP not even informed the complainant from 07.04.2016 to 28.06.2016 regarding return of the cheque due to signature differs. OP having option to inform the complainant or inquired from complainant regarding issue of the cheque in question on telephone. But the OP failed to provide proper services to the complainant and acted negligently, due to negligence of OP, the complainant suffered financially as well as mentally that the cheque of complainant has been returned as dishonoured instrument. The OP acted negligently by keeping the cheque unnecessarily for long time, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the the part of the OP and thus, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OP be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant on account of negligence, deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP and accordingly, OP appeared and filed reply, whereby took preliminary submissions, whereby contested the complaint on the ground that the cheque of the complainant in question has been rightly dishonoured with the remarks “Drawers signature differs”, vide memo dated 28.04.2016 as the signatures on the cheque were entirely different from the standard signature of the complainant in the bank record. Further, there was no delay on the part of the OP in returning the cheque of the complainant. It is submitted here that after the presentation of the cheque, the OP made number of attempts to contact the complainant regarding the cheque and the signatures difference on the cheque through telephone, but could not make contact with the complainant. As the IPO of the Muthoot Finance Limited was to be closed, the complainant had to return the cheque, vide memo dated 28.04.2016 after giving the number of opportunities to the complainant to get his cheque passed. After the dishonouring of cheque, the said cheque was sent to the Mumbai Office of Muthoot Finance Limited on 06.05.2016 through post. The company then returned the cheque to the office of the OP bank at Chennai, which sent the same to Model Town Branch of the OP on 07.06.2016 and after receiving the same on 13.06.2016, the OP then posted the same cheque to the complainant on 15.06.2016. As such, there is no delay in returning the cheque to the complainant on the part of the OP and even there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the OP, therefore, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands rather the complainant has suppressed the material facts. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed and further submitted that the dispute involved in this complaint is a civil nature and requires detailed evidence for proper adjudication. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Even the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the complainant has already filed a complaint to the Consumer Education and Protection Cell, Reserve Bank of India, Chandigarh on the same facts and the said matter is under consideration. As such, the present compliant is not maintainable. On merits, the factum in regard to running of the account of the complainant in the OP Bank is not denied and even it is also admitted that the cheque of the complainant have been rightly dishonoured by the OP because the signature of the complainant put on the cheque was not tally with the standard signature of the complainant in the bank account. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.

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

7. From the pleadings of the party, it emerged that the allegation of the complainant is only as mentioned on page No.2 that the OP illegally and negligently dishonoured the cheque of the complainant and second allegation is that the OP also kept the cheque with itself without intimation to the complainant. The above allegation of the complainant have been answered by the OP simply that the cheque of the complainant was not illegally dishonoured rather the signature of the complainant did not tally with the standard signature lying in the bank record and due to that reason, the cheque was rightly dishonoured. In reply to second claim, the OP submitted that after the comparing of the signature of the complainant when it did not tally, then the OP made number of efforts to contact the complainant through phone, but all in vain and ultimately, the complainant sent the cheque to the Mumbai Office of Muthoot Finance Limited on 06.05.2016 and through Chennai, the said cheque was received on 13.06.2016 and then the same posted to the complainant on 15.06.2016 and as such, there is no delay on the part of the OP.

8. Now, we have to consider the allegation of the complainant and thereof reply given by the OP and then to conclude the issue in dispute. First of all, we have to take in notice the cheque in question was deposited by the complainant with the OP IndusInd Bank or with the Muthoot Security Limited, where from the complainant had applied for issue of security bound, for that purpose, the reply is find from the complaint itself, on the first page, the complainant himself described as under:-

“The said cheque have been duly deposited with the Muthoot Security Limited along with application form and the same was presented for encashment by the Muthoot Security Limited with the OP Bank”.

9. The aforesaid plea of the complainant itself established that the cheque was not presented by the complainant directly to the OP Bank, “which is banker of the complainant” rather the said cheque was presented by the Muthoot Security Limited Company and whenever any defect find out in the cheque like in the present case, “the signature of the complainant differ”, then the cheque is required to return to the person, who presented for encashment, not to the account holder and similarly, in this case, as per version of the OP, the cheque was sent to the Mumbai Office of Muthoot Finance Limited on 06.05.2013 through post and then the said Muthoot Finance Company returned the cheque to the office of the OP Bank at Chennai, where from the said cheque was received in the branch of the OP i.e. Model Town Branch, Jalandhar on 13.06.2016, then the same was sent to the complainant on 15.06.2016. From the above facts, it is clearly established that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP for causing any delay for return of the cheque.

10. Coming to the other claim of the complainant, whether the cheque of the complainant was illegally dishonoured, for that purpose, we are of the considered opinion that if as per signature available in the bank record, the signature on the cheque does not tally with the standard signature, then it is bonafidely in the benefit of the complainant, rather we can say in other word that the OP is safe guarding the interest of the complainant by minutely comparing the signature of the account holder/complainant with the signature on the cheque, if the signature had not been put on the cheque by the complainant, then the official of the OP will be in trouble. So, from this angle, we are of the considered opinion that there is again no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So, from the over all circumstances as accumulated above, there is no solid substances in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant and therefore, complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. 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 Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

13.06.2018 Member President