Order No. -20                                                                                             Dt.-10 / 09 /2015

      Shri Asoke Kumar Das,President
      Complainant’s case in short is that she is an assistant teacher and she opened her salary account number 31791502362 on 11/08/20-11 with SBI, Maynaguri Branch. She has been using her ATM Card issued by the bank all along till date. Bank also issued Multicity Cheque in her favour containing 50 cheque leaves numbering from 818476to 818525 and her name and account number have been printed on the cheque leaves. On 08/01/2014 she issued one cheque bearing number 818477 in favour of National Insurance Co. Ltd. for Rs.5280/- towards premium of her mediclaim policy and on receiving that cheque the Insurance Company issued certificate of insurance policy number 153900/48/13/8500003002, which was valid from 01/01/2014 to 09/01/2015 alongwith premium certificate for the purpose of Income Tax deduction . In the year 2014 she has submitted her Income Tax return showing deduction of Rs.5280/- to get the benefit u/s 80D of the I.T.Act. On 08/04/2014 she received a letter from National Insurance Co.Ltd. wherefrom she came to know that her said Mediclaim Policy was cancelled since inception as the cheque no.818477 dt. 08/01/2014 issued by her has been returned for the reason “Signature image not found”. Insurance company also deducted Rs.200/- for bank charges. According to complainant her Mediclaim Policy was cancelled due to said negligent Act of the Bank (SBI) as a result she has been deprived from all the benefits of her said Mediclaim Policy and Income Tax deduction benefit and that act of SBI also affected her status and prestige. Hence the complainant has filed this case and prayed for the reliefs specifically mentioned in the prayer portion of her petition of complaint.
       Both the O.Ps. i.e. State Bank of India and National Insurance Co. Ltd. have contested this case by filing separate written version denying and disputing the claim and contentions of complainant with prayer for dismissal of the case.
Specific stand of O.Ps. 3 and 4 i.e. National Insurance Co.Ltd. is that they accepted the cheque no.818477 dt.08/01/2014 issued by the complainant towards payment of premium of Mediclaim Policy in good faith and issued certificate but as that cheque was bounced, they cancelled that Mediclaim Policy and they are not anyway held responsible.
Specific stand of O.Ps. 1 and 2 (State Bank of India) is that the complainant used the cheque leaf very rare and since 2011 to 2014 she only used a single cheque leaf out of 50 and very unfortunately that cheque number 818477 was returned for the reason of “SIGNATURE IMAGE NOT FOUND” because her signature was not present in Core Banking System Software (CBS) of State Bank of India during that time and that cheque was not dishonored and she could update her signature in CBS at any Banking transaction time. The issue of dishonor of cheque arise only in case of bank account having insufficient fund than the amount written in the cheque and in this case no such matter was observed by the bank (SBI). So it was not a matter of dishonor of cheque which is punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION
Is the case maintainable?
Is the complainant a consumer?
Is the O.P. Bank guilty for Unfair Trade Practice and/or deficiency in service as alleged?
Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?   
DECISION  WITH  REASONS
All points are taken up together for consideration and decision. 
Seen and perused the petition of compliant and the Written Version(Both are supported by affidavits), the written arguments and documents filed by the parties.
We have heard arguments of the Ld. Lawyers for complainant and O.Ps. 2 and 3 in full. Nobody argued the case for and on behalf of O.P. 1 and 2 (SBI) at the time of final hearing. 
      Now after due consideration of the aforesaid  we find that there is nothing adverse on record against the maintainability of this case  on technical grounds such as jurisdiction, limitation etc. We further find that admittedly the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. SBI.
       Now from the documents filed by the side of the complainant we find that the complainant issued  cheque no. 818477 dt.08/01/2014  for Rs.5280/- in the name of National Insurance Co. Ltd. and that the SBI(O.P. 1 and 2) has returned back that cheque on 02/04/2014 on the ground that, “Signature image not found”.
    The O.Ps. 1 and 2 in its W/V has categorically stated that the said cheque was simply returned for the reason  that signature image not found in the Core Banking System(CBS) of the SBI during that time as the complainant used only one cheque i.e. cheque no.818477 on 08/01/2014 out of 50 cheque leaves since 2011 to 2014 and that the Bank (SBI) has not dishonored that cheque as account balance was not insufficient than that of the amount written on that cheque. We now find that the complainant has admitted in paragraph five of her petition of complaint that since 11/08/2011 i.e. since opening of her said account she has been using her ATM card all along till date. So it is clear that since opening the said account number 31791502302 with SBI in 2011 till 08/01/2014 the complainant had issued only one cheque i.e. the cheque in question bearing number 818477 without verifying from the bank  if her specimen signature image was recorded in the CBS of the Bank (SBI) before issue of that cheque in question. She even didn’t update her passbook  to know the status of her account before issue of the cheque in question and the fate of her cheque number 818477 issued on 08/01/2014 till receiving intimation from O.Ps. 3 and 4. Sec 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 says that , where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part,, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offense u/s 138 of the N.I.Act. Keeping in mind the above definition, we find that in our present case the cheque no.818477 dt.08/01/2014 issued by complainant was not dishonored but simply returned by her Bank (SBI) as the signature image of complainant was not found in the Core Banking system of the Bank (SBI).In our considered opinion as the complainant didn’t issue any cheque since opening of her said account in 2011 till 07/01/2014 and she only used her ATM card all along, so she felt no necessity at all to record her specimen signature image in the Core Banking System of the Bank (SBI) which is very vital nowadays to avail all banking facilities. Furthermore the complainant could pay the said premium to National Insurance Co.Ltd. immediately after receiving the returned cheque or she could take a new mediclaim policy immediately after cancellation of her said mediclaim policy to avail the benefit of the policy. But the complainant did nothing save and except filing of this case. At the time of hearing of the argument, on being asked by this Forum, Ld. Lawyer for complainant submitted that the complainant and other insured person didn’t suffer from any sort of ailment etc till date as covered by the said mediclaim policy. That apart in a mediclaim policy the insured person is entitled only the expenditure made by him/her for medical treatment, tests etc for ailments of her own  and /or insured person as per terms and conditions of the policy but in this case the complainant has prayed for direction upon the Bank (SBI) for payment of total sum assured i.e. policy value of Rs.3 lacs although she spent nothing for medical treatment, tests etc for herself and for other insured person till date and as such it was/is not desirable from the complainant, who is a teacher by profession, to make such prayer. Complainant’s claim of Rs.10 lacs towards compensation has no base at all as we find from materials on that record. It is well settled principle that, “the Consumer Fora cannot be used to extort money for unjust enrichment”. Therefore we find and hold that the acts of O.Ps. are not coming within ambit of Unfair Trade Practice and/or deficiency in service.
        In this view of the matter and after due consideration of the materials of record and arguments of the Ld. Lawyers we find sufficient reason to hold that the O.Ps. are not guilty either for Unfair Trade Practice or for deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case and this case is liable to be dismissed.
   All points are disposed of accordingly.
   In the result the case fails.
   Hence, it is 
O R D E R E D
         that the case/ application is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.2000/-.
  The complainant is directed to pay the aforesaid cost of Rs.2000/-(Rs.1000/- to State Bank of India and Rs.1000/- to National Insurance Co.Ltd.) within 30 days from the date hereof failing which the O.Ps. shall be at liberty to realise the same in accordance with law. 
         Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith as per provision of Consumer Protection Act,1986.