Complaint filed on: 28-05-2016 Disposed on: 18-11-2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM,
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.74/2016
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
G.Sreepathi,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o. Late H.Ganapathi Pandith, R/o. Sri Ramashraya,
4th Main Road,
Shivamookambika Nagara,
S.S.Puram Post,
Tumakuru-572 102
(In-person)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
- The Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Main Branch, Ashoka Road, Tumakuru-01
- The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Siddapura Branch, Siddapura (U.K)
(OPs No.1 and 2 by Sri.Jagadeeshappa-Advocate)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint has filed this complainant against the OPs No.1 and 2, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPs No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,000=00 towards legal notice charges, Rs,10,000=00 towards compensation, Rs.15,000=00 towards damages and Rs.10,000=00 towards cost, in total Rs.36,000=00 as complainant has faced severe mental agony and service deficiency from the OPs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant is having a Saving Bank Account with the 1st OP vide account No.0522101030343 and making transactions regularly by maintaining sufficient balance in the said account and the complainant has also availed cheque facility and is having ATM Card for withdrawing money from his account in case of need.
The complainant further submitted that, he went to Siddapura (U.K.) on 18-5-2016 to his father-in-laws house. At that time on 21-5-2016 as he has not carried ATM card with him, the complainant had used cheque for withdrawal of money. The complainant further submitted that, he had presented cheque vide its No.750997 dated 21-5-2016 for Rs.2,000=00 before the 2nd OP bank at about 11-25 a.m. The complainant alleged that the 2nd OP Bank Manager has posed irrelevant questions to the complainant and finally at about 12.25 p.m., 2nd OP bank has refused to make the payment on the reason “Drawer Signature Differs”. The complainant further submitted that, the reason quoted by the 2nd OP is not maintainable as the cheque presented by the complainant is a self cheque and the complainant himself has presented the same before the 2nd OP. It is alleged that, the 2nd OP is not in a position to pass the said cheque after obtaining identity from the complainant. The complainant further submitted that, the act of the 2nd OP made the complainant and his wife to wait unnecessarily for nearly one hour in the 2nd OP bank and the complainant has faced service deficiency and also mental agony. The 2nd OP has spoiled the reputation of the complainant by posing/putting irrelevant questions in front of other customers by suspecting the complainant and also treated the complainant like a culprit. The complainant further submitted that, he has faced service deficiency and also mental agony from the negligent act of 2nd OP. The complainant is having SB account with 11st OP and 2nd OP has failed to provide proper service to the complainant and hence both OPs are liable to bear the liability of paying cost, damages and compensation. Hence the present complaint is filed.
3. After service of notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed separate objections.
4. In the version, the 1st OP submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant has filed false complaint against the 1st OP and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st OP. The 1st OP is made as only formal party to the proceedings. The allegations made in the Para no.2 of the complaint are not true and again Para No.2 of the complaint is not within the knowledge of the 1st OP. The allegations made in the Para no.3 of the complaint are all false and not within the knowledge of the 1st OP. The 1st OP further submitted that, the complainant has not carried the ATM Card is false. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied as false. The 1st OP further submitted that, the complainant is not entitled to the legal notice charges of Rs.10,000=00, compensation of Rs.15,000=00 and cost of Rs.10,000=00, because there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st OP. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
5. In the version, the 2nd OP has submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant has filed false complaint against the 2nd OP and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd OP. The allegations made in the complaint are false and denied and not within the knowledge of the 2nd OP and there is no cause action for the complaint.
The 2nd OP further submitted that, the complainant presented the cheque No.750997 for Rs.2,000=00 dated 21-5-2016 before the 2nd OP and the 2nd OP verified the signature of the complainant with the scanned specimen signature appeared on the computer screen. It was found by the 2nd OP that the signature which appeared on the computer screen did not tally to the signature found on the cheque No.7500997. Hence the 2nd OP refused to honur the cheque. On this ground issued a letter of memorandum of cheques unpaid to the complainant on the ground that “Drawers Signatures Differs” Hence this act of the OP does not amount to deficiency of service.
The 2nd OP further submitted that, the complainant is not entitled to the legal notice chargers of Rs.10,000=00, compensation of Rs.15,000=00 and cost of Rs.10,000=00, because there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd OP and there was no deficiency of service on the part of their bank. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
6. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced the Original cheque vide its No.750997 dated 21-5-2016 for Rs.2,000=00 of 1st OP, Memorandum of cheque issued by 2nd OP dated 21-5-2016, legal notice issued to the OPs and professional courier service receipt. When the case was posted for order, the complainant has come up with the memo dated 22-9-2016 for obtaining the disputed original cheque and this Forum has returned the said cheque to the complainant on 22-9-2016. Then the complainant has presented the said cheque before the OP’s branch, i.e. Canara Bank, SS Puram branch, Tumakuru, wherein the complainant does not have his account, but the same was honoured the cheque without any remark.
7. Regarding the memo filed by the complainant, the 2nd OP has filed objections to the said memo stating that, the memo is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed. The complainant altered the disputed cheque dated and presented the Canara Bank, SS Puram branch, Tumakuru by suppressing the fact of the case. During the pendency of the case, the complainant has no right to alter the cheque in any way.
8 We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents of both parties and posted the case for order.
9. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 and 2 as alleged by the complainant?
- What Order?
10. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: Partly affirmative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
11. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence, objections of the OPs and documents produced by the complainant, it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant is having SB account in the 1st OP bank branch vide account No.0522101030343.
12. The complainant’s contention is that, he had presented the self cheque bearing No.750997 in the 2nd OP bank branch on 21-5-2016 for Rs.2,000=00, but the 2nd OP bank had refused to honour the said cheque amount of Rs.2,000=00 and the 2nd OP has posed/put irrelevant questions in front of the other customers by suspecting the complainant as a culprit.
13. The 2nd OP has submitted that, after verifying the specimen signature of the complainant on the computer screen, issued the letter of memorandum of cheques stating that, “Drawers Signature Differs” as the complainant’s signature has not tallied.
14. On perusal of the complaint and documents produced by both parties that, there is negligence on the part of the 2nd OP Since 2nd OP has not honoured the said cheque of the complainant. The complainant has presented self cheque bearing no.750997 for Rs.2,000=00 before the 2nd OP bank branch. The 2nd OP has not verified the photograph of the complainant nor taken any identity card of the complainant’s or obtaining one more signature from the complainant. The 2nd OP has straight away come to conclusion that, “Drawers Signature Differs”. The 2nd OP rejected the self cheque presented by the complainant. Further, the complainant has presented the above said cheque bearing No.750997 in Canara Bank, SS Puram branch, Tumakuru and the very same cheque which was returned from by the 2nd OP was honoured. Therefore, when the cheque was honoured by the Canara Bank, SS Puram branch, the 2nd OP branch cannot be refused the cheque on 21-5-2016. The said act of the 2nd OP is highly arbitrary and the said conduct of the 2nd OP is deprecated.
15. In respect of the claim of compensation of Rs.50,000=00, cost of Rs.10,000=00 and damages of Rs.10,000=00 totally Rs.36,000=00 has claimed by the complainant is disproportionate. However, the complainant has faced financial problems and mental agony in not honouring the self cheque of the complainant. However, there is no good ground to compensate the complainant to the extent of compensation as claimed by him. Therefore, we award compensation of Rs.3,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs.2,000=000 to the complainant and the complaint filed against the 1st OP is hereby dismissed. Accordingly we answer this point. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The 2nd OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000=00 to the complainant, failing which, the 2nd OP shall pay the above said amount along with 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint to till the date of realization.
The 2nd OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
The complaint filed against the 1st OP is hereby dismissed.
This order is to be complied by the 2nd OP within 30 days from the date of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 18th day of November 2016).
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
