Complaints filed on: 16-07-2021
Disposed on: 11-08-2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
CC.No.56/2021
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, 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
Complainant: -
Sri.Dayananda Kulakarni
S/o Late Nagesh Rao Kulkarni,
Aged about 68 years,
Residing at Opp.Ceramic Godown, 15th Cross, S.S.Puram, Tumakuru City
(By Smt.Navya.B, Advocate)
V/s
Opposite party:-
The Branch Manager,
Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
Someshwarapuram Branch,
Tumakuru City
ORDER ON THE ADMISSION OF COMPLAINT
SMT. NIVEDITA RAVISH, LADY MEMBER
This complaint is filed by the complainant against opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant prays to direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.2,360-00 to his account with interest from the date of deducting the same along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental pain, agony, communication expenses, litigation costs etc. along with interest @12% per annum in the interest of justice and equity.
2. It is the case of complainant that he had issued a Account payee cheque to M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Tumkur for a sum of Rs.5,00,000-00 dated 26-03-2021 bearing cheque No.079001 for discharge of loan with the said Finance Company Ltd. When the said Finance Company presented the cheque for realization which was dishonoured due to “DIFFERS IN SIGNATURE” by the OP.
3. The complainant further submitted that he was a senior citizen aged about 68 years and he was suffering from Diabetic, Hypertension, Vision problem and other old age problems. Because of vibration in his hand there will be little changes in his signature to compare with the previous signature. The complainant personally went to the OP bank and expressed all these things and also given necessary letter.
4. The complainant alleged that the OP bank has illegally deducted a sum of Rs.2,360-00 from his account due to dishonor of the cheque on 26-03-2021. Hence, the complainant has got issued legal notice to the OP on 08-04-2021. Inspite of the service of legal notice, the OP bank has failed to comply with the prayer of the complainant. The Complainant has submitted that he has suffered mentally and lost his good reputation in the society and also midst of his family, friends and relatives. Hence, this complaint.
5. We have heard the oral arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. The learned counsel for complainant submitted that the act of OP bank to dishonor the cheque itself amounts to deficiency in service. At least the OP bank should have informed the complainant about the difference in the signature. The little differences are made in the signature due to age factor of the complainant.
7. The OP has dishonored the cheque and also deducted a sum of Rs.2,360-00 without informing the complainant. This act of OP bank is against the natural justice. Further the complainant submission that he has issued a letter to OP bank stating about that little changes while putting his signatures and sought to consider his transaction by putting his present signature, but the complainant has not produced the copy or acknowledgement of the letter.
8. It is the duty of the OP bank to safeguard its customers and in that direction banks always verify the signatures containing in the instrument before passing it. The banks are availing advanced gadgets for the said purpose of safe guarding the interest of the account holders to avoid forgery and misuse of instruments like cheque etc.
9. In 2005 CTJ 494 (CP) (NCDRC) N.Venkanna V/s Andra Bank–The Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi held that,
“If signature on the cheque is not genuine, there is no mandate to the bank to make payment”.
The rule of dishonor of the cheque on the basis of “Differs in Signature” is made for safeguard of its customers/consumers. If the account holder wants to change his signature and to make differ in signature he should inform the bank before and he should change specimen signature in the bank. Therefore, the deficiency of service on the part of OP does not arise hence, this complaint is liable to dismissed.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 11th day of August, 2021).
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
