BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Rakesh Singla son of Sh.Ramesh Chand Singla, R/o House No.3199, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

The Manager, ICICI Bank Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, SCO 9-10-11, Chandigarh.

                                                ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL              MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Krishan Lal, Counsel for complainant.

                        Sh.Manish Jain, Counsel for OP.               

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant opened a saving bank account No.001301535970 with OP. On 18.6.2011, the complainant included the name of his wife in the said account. On 1.7.2011, he issued a cheque of Rs.4000/- in favour of Sh.Sunil Kumar. That on 4.7.2011, the OP returned that cheque to Sh.Sunil Kumar with the remarks “Image Record Does Not” meaning thereby the money of Rs.4000/- was not transferred by the bank to Sh.Sunil Kumar.

                   It is further the case of the complainant that Sh.Sunil Kumar insulted the complainant in a most ugly manner and returned the cheque to him. The complainant was shocked after reading the said remarks of the OP. There were more than Rs.20,000/- in the account of the complainant on the day of issuing of the cheque on 1.7.2011. It has been alleged that on 9.7.2011, the complainant visited the OP Bank and inquired the whole matter, upon which the dealing hand of the Bank intimated, that the signatures of the complainant as well as his wife scanned in the computer omitted from the safe record of the bank. It is further the case of the complainant that there was no lapse on his part, so he is not responsible for clearing the cheque. The complainant wrote to the OP for taking the necessary action, but no action was taken. Hence this complaint.

2.                The OP in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Bank in terms of the Master Circular on Customer and Account Modification under the head ‘change in customer detail’, unusable cheques are deleted and thereafter a fresh cheque book is issued to the account holder, which contains the name of the amended/added account holder. Consequent to addition of the name of the wife of complainant, a new cheque book was duly dispatched and delivered to him. The cheque in question bearing No.537102 was from the old cheque book, which as per the bank record had been destroyed/deleted in accordance with the Master Circular consequent to addition of name of the wife of the complainant. It implies that such a cheque book does not exist in the record of the bank. It is pleaded that the complainant ought to have issued a cheque from the new cheque book & not from the old cheque book. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.                The only point which calls decision from this Fora is whether the cheque in question bearing No. 537102 was from the old cheque book, which as per the bank record had been destroyed/deleted in accordance with the Master Circular consequent to addition of the name of the wife of the complainant. The answer to this is in the negative.

6.                The complainant has appended the letter dated 26.7.2011 from the OP – Annnexure C-5 along with the rejoinder. It has been stated in the said letter that they had done detailed investigation. That as per record whenever a request for addition of joint account holder is taken at the branch, the earlier cheque book issued to the customer needs to be submitted to the bank for cancellation. They apologise that this information was not given.

7.                Now it is proved from the letter – Annexure C-5, referred to above, wherein the OP has apologized for not giving the information to the complainant to submit the earlier cheque book for cancellation. The OP has further admitted that due to technical issue, the signature was not uploaded in the system, so the cheque was returned.

8.                Now it is proved on record that the earlier cheque book issued to the customer – complainant was required to be submitted to the bank for cancellation on getting information regarding it from the bank. Admittedly, the bank has not informed the complainant to deposit the earlier cheque book for the purpose of cancellation. Therefore, under the given situation, we are of the opinion that the defence raised by the bank that in accordance with the guidelines issued by the bank in terms of Master Circular on Customer and Account Modification under the head ‘change in customer detail’, unusable cheques are deleted and, thereafter, a fresh cheque book is issued to the account holder, which contains the name of the amended/added account holder does not stand to reason nor survives. The legal duty was casted upon the bank to inform the complainant to submit the cheque book for cancellation, which they have failed to do so, which resulted into issuance of the cheque of Rs.4,000/-from the earlier cheque book. If the bank would have informed the complainant to submit the cheque book and, thereafter, cancelled the same, there would have been no occasion for the complainant to issue the cheque from the earlier cheque book.   The bank has also apologized qua Annexure C-5 with regard to non-supply of the said information, which amounts to deficiency in service.

9.                     As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation within one month, failing which, the OP is liable to pay penal interest  @ 12% on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 20.07.2011 till its realization besides Rs.2500/- as litigation costs.

10.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.