C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/97
COMPLAINANT Pratip Kumar Dhar,
S/o Late Badri Narayan Dhar,
Divyalok Bhawan, H.C. Sarkar Road,
Near Akshoy Vidyapith
P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
PIN - 741101
– Vs. –
OPPOSITE PARTY / OP : The Chief Manager,
United Bank of India,
Krishnagar Branch,
P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
PIN – 741101
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 21st February, 2014
: J U D G M E N T :
The facts of the case to put, in a nutshell, are as below:-
The petitioner, Pratip Kumar Dhar is a senior citizen and a retired Government employee. His savings bank account No. 0215010431338 is with United Bank of India, Krishnagar Branch. For payment of insurance premium he had issued one cheque in favour of TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. vide cheque No. 527161 dtd. 13.06.13 of Rs. 25,425/-. The cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement “drawers signature differs” and Rs. 92/- was deducted from his savings account although the cheque was not honoured. The petitioner had issued a few more cheques which was duly honoured. The petitioner prays for replenishment of Rs. 92/- for deducted as postal charges extra. The OP violated the instructions of the bank and was deficient in service. The petitioner also prays for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony torture and sufferings for dishonour of cheque. He has also prayed for Rs. 500/- as interest on Rs.25,425/- @ 18% from 13.06.13.
The bank has contested the case by filing written objection. The written objection dtd. 18.11.13 is very short. It denies the claim of the petitioner being malafide, misconceived and motivated. As the signature of the petitioner differed the cheque was not cleared and the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the case.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Point No. 3: What relief the claimant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion. It is admitted that the petitioner is a consumer.
On 19.12.13 Pratip Kumar Dhar, the complainant has prayed for sending his signature to the expert but he did not pay any fees for such expert examination. We have compared the original specimen signature card of the petitioner lying with the Bank with the signature of Pratip Kumar Dhar on the outgoing cheque. The cheque was deposited by AXIS bank, Krishnagar Branch for clearance but it was not cleared on the ground difference of signature of drawer vide the original cheque specimen signature card of the petitioner. We gave serious thought over the matter in dispute and found that the signature was not properly put by the complaint for which it differed.
Considering the pleadings of the documents on record we hold that the claimant could not establish whimsical or arbitrariness on the part of denying payment of cheque amount to the account holder, complainant.
The rule of the RBI regarding clearance of cheque although referred was not produced before the Forum by the complainant hence that point is left untouched during the argument.
On a careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to hold that the complainant has failed to establish the fault or deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/97 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/97
COMPLAINANT Pratip Kumar Dhar,
S/o Late Badri Narayan Dhar,
Divyalok Bhawan, H.C. Sarkar Road,
Near Akshoy Vidyapith
P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
PIN – 741101
– Vs. –
OPPOSITE PARTY / OP : The Chief Manager,
United Bank of India,
Krishnagar Branch,
P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
PIN – 741101
PRESENT : SHRI ASOKE KUMAR DAS, PRESIDENT
: SMT NABANITA KAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SK. JAMALUDDIN, MEMBER
: FINAL ORDER :
DATE OF FILING : 24.09.2013
ORDER No. 31
DATE. 12.07.2017
Shri Asoke Kumer Das – President
Complainants’ case in a nutshell is that he has a savings bank A/C bearing No. 0215010431338. On 13.06.2013 he issued one cheque for Rs. 25425/- in favour of TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. That cheque was returned unpaid by the Chief Manager of the United Bank of India, Krishnagar Branch (OP) on 05.06.2013 with remark, ‘Drawer’s signature differs’. Thereafter, the complainant issued another cheque on 24.06.13 for Rs. 10,000/- in favour of TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. with the same and identical signature and this time the OP bank paid the said amount on 27.06.2013. On 10.07.2013 the complainant wrote a letter to OP bank. On 20.07.2013 the OP bank sent a reply to this letter stating that as the amount of subsequent cheque was low that amount was paid by the bank. Thereafter, complainant issued cheques to others and those cheques were duly honoured by the OP bank. The complainant sent demand notice to the bank but no fruitful result has come out. Hence, this case. The complainant has prayed for a direction to OP bank to pay him Rs. 92/-, compensation for Rs. 50,000/- and cost of proceedings.
The OP bank has resisted the case by filing a written objection denying and disputing, inter alia, the claim and contention of the complainant with prayer for dismissal of the case. The specific stand of the OP is that the norm of comparison of current signature with the old preserve signature of the customer has been created for the purpose of security and safety of the customer and not to harass the customer and that the cheques issued by the complainant previously were honoured time to time by the bank and when the bank found some difference in the two signatures of the complainant then only the cheque was dishonoured for difference of signatures with request to the complainant to execute the option to change his signature if he is unable to maintain his previous signature. Because it is a common incident that everyone’s signature differs time to time and that is natural. In the present case cheque No. 527161 for Rs. 25,425/- issued by the complainant was dishonoured due to mismatch of signature and that was done by bank to secure the money of his customer, here the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the OP Bank liable for deficiency in service as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
After due consideration, of the materials on record i.e., the petition of complaint, the written version, documents filed by the parties and all other relevant materials on record and after consideration of oral arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both sides, we find that admittedly the complainant maintains savings bank A/C bearing No. 0215010431338 with the OP bank. Admittedly this Forum has territorial and as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of this case. Admittedly the case has filed within the period of limitation of two years. Therefore, we find and hold that the case is maintainable and the complainant is a consumer of the OP bank.
It is to be mentioned here that this case was heard and dismissed on contest vide judgment and order dtd. 21.02.2014. The complainant preferred first appeal No. FA/356/2014 against judgment order dtd. 21.02.2014. Hon'ble State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and the case was sent back on remand to this Forum to give opportunity to the complainant to deposit necessary fees for examination of documents by handwriting expert and after receiving the report from any handwriting expert to dispose of the case on merit according to law.
After receiving the order of the Hon'ble State Commission, opportunity was given to the complainant to produce the cheque in question for sending the same to the hand writing expert but the complainant could not produce the cheque in question despite getting ample opportunity. It appears from order-sheet that the complainant filed the Xerox copy of cheque in question at the time of filing of the case and there is nothing on record to show that the complainant filed the cheque in question to this Forum.
Furthermore, the cheque in question could not be traced out despite vigorous search mode by the employees of this Forum.
So it could not possible to send the cheque in question to handwriting expert for comparison. So opportunity was given to the complainant to adduce evidence to prove his case but the complainant did not adduce any evidence.
Now after due consideration on materials on record and argument advanced by the complainant himself and the Ld. Lawyer for OP, we find that the cheque in question issued by the complainant was dishonoured by the OP bank as the signature was mismatched and that was done by the OP bank for safety and security of the money of the customer / complainant and not to harass him because the other cheques issued by the complainant prior to issue of the cheque in question and after that were honoured by the bank as the signature of the complainant on those cheques were not mismatched with preserved signature. Such preventive measure as taken by the OP bank cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Therefore, OP bank cannot be liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. All points are disposed of accordingly. In the result the case fails.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the case stands dismissed on contest but in the circumstances we make no order of the cost.
Let plain copy of this final order be supplied to the parties / their Ld. Advocates / agents forthwith free of cost or send by ordinary post.
