Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

326/2010

S.VijayaKumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s. Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N.Varadha Rajan

07 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                         Date of Filing :   16.07.2010

                                                                        Date of Order :   07.08.2015.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                      : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A.L.L.B.,                                   : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.326/2010

FRIDAY THIS 7^TH  DAY OF AUGUST 2015

 

Mr. S.Vijayakumar,

S/o. A.Srinivasan,

No.2, Janagathan Street,

Eldams Road, Teynampet,

Chennai – 18.                                       .. Complainant

                                                 ..Vs..

The Manager,

M/s. Axis Bank Ltd.,

Main Branch,

No.82, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 4.                                          .. Opposite parties.

 

 

For the Complainant             :  M/s. N.Varadha Rajan & another      

 

For the Opposite party         :  M/s. R. Palani Kumar Ramesh

  

 

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.98,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of the complaint  to the complainant.      

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT        

 

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

        The complainant is holding a saving bank account No.006010101213735 at the opposite party bank.  He had obtained loan from M/s. Kodak Mahindra Prime Limited by handing over posted dated EMI cheque drawn on the opposite party.   All the cheques of the opposite parties bank and two other banks were signed by the complainant at the same time and so his signature in all the above cheques were one and the same without any dissimilarity.    Both cheques drawn on the opposite party bank  were presented by his financer with the opposite party bank for encashment but the opposite party have returned both the above cheque on the ground that the complainant’s signature in the above two cheuqes differs.    Thereafter on 18.2.2010 the complainant had approached the opposite party bank and he had updated the signature at their bank with reference to his above bank account at their instance.   But even thereafter also the opposite parties had negligently returned his cheque by once again on the same ground that the complainant’s signature differs.    It is not in dispute that the complainant had sufficient funds in his account with the opposite party bank to meet the amounts set out in the cheques.      Accordingly the complainant had sent a legal notice on 3.4.2010 calling upon the opposite party to pay the aforesaid compensation amounts.  Though the opposite parties have received the complainant’s notice they neither gave any reply nor complied the complainant’s demands.     As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.    Hence the complaint.      

Written version of  opposite parties  is  as follows:-

2.      It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party stated that because to support its customer for speedy and quick banking transactions and to implement the above facility the opposite party bank update the details of its customer and scanned the specimen signature in the electronic systems.  Whenever the customer have transaction, for each every transaction the specimen signature to be verified with the instrument submitted for transaction.   The two cheques of the complainant were verified with the specimen signature of him available in the system and the opposite party officials found that the dots put on the K is missing and also the style of letter “a” after J and Y are totally differ from the specimen signature which is registered with the opposite party records.   Though the complainant have  sufficient funds in his account because of  the variation in the signature of the complaint in the two cheques which were differed with specimen signature on record,  the above two cheques were returned with an endorsement Drawer Signature differs.   The opposite party produce the specimen signature of the complaint herewith and comparison of the signature of the complainant in the two cheques with the specimen signature which was maintained by the opposite party clearly prove the facts that the signature in the two cheques and the specimen signature does not tally with each other.   Therefore there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite party  and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on the side of the complainant.    Opposite party have filed his  proof affidavit and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party.  

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. POINTS 1 & 2 :

          Perused the complaint filed by the complainant,  written version filed by the opposite party, proof affidavit of both parties  and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10  filed on the side of the complainant and the documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2  filed on the side of the opposite party  and considered the both side arguments.  There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant is having savings account No.006010101213735 with the opposite party bank with cheque facility.  The complainant has stated that he has borrowed loan from  M/s. Kodak Mahindra Prime Limited, and in order to discharge the said loan towards the payment of EMI he has given the complaint mentioned cheque Ex.A2 for Rs.17,785/- dated 15.2.2010 and another cheque Ex.A4 for Rs.17,765/- dated 15.1.2010 to the Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited and they were presented for encashment the opposite party have returned the said cheque stating that the drawer’s signature differ from specimen signature on record as per Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 respectively.    According to the complainant the return of the said cheques made by the opposite party was not on valid ground and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

6.      Whereas the opposite party has resisted the said compliant by saying that as per the procedure of the bank the signature of the customer in the instrument is to be verified by comparing with the signature found in the instrument with the signature available on record in the bank of the customer.   Accordingly on verification by comparison of the signatures found the said two cheques they were differed from specimen signatures available in the bank by the opposite party officials and found that the dots put on the K is missing and also the style of letter “a” after J and Y are totally differ from the specimen signature which is registered with the opposite party records.  So that the return of the said two cheques are proper and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  As such the complaint is to be dismissed.  The specimen signature maintained by the bank which was said to have been compared with the signature found in the complaint mentioned two cheques issued by the complainant is filed  Ex.B2. 

7.    According to the opposite party the specimen signature of the complainant which was maintained in the record by the opposite party is Ex.B2.   The Ex.B2 contains two pages, the first page contains  three signatures and second page contains one another signature. 

8.      Further it is pertinent to note that this forum as a judicial forum can very well decide such dispute by comparing the said disputed signatures with the admitted signature and find out the truth and also decide the dispute.    Accordingly when we compared the disputed signatures with the signature found in the Ex.B2, the  2^nd signature found in page No.1 and Page No.2 of the Ex.B2 with the signature found in Ex.A2 and Ex.A4, they are appears to be similar in nature and appearance on seeing and comparing them with necked eyes and found no difference.     Contrary to this the contention made by the opposite party that the signature of the complainant found in Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 are differ from the specimen signature of the complainant maintained in record i.e.  Ex.B2 is not valid and not acceptable.  As such though the another two specimen signatures found in the first page of  Ex.B2 are  not appear to be similar with the signature of the complainant found in Ex.A2 and Ex.A4,  on the said ground if the said two cheques were returned by the opposite party as the signature found in Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 differ from specimen signature maintained by record is not proper.  Because the specimen signatures found in Ex.B2 are four in number.   The very purpose of maintaining such four number of signature as specimen  signatures is for the purpose of comparing signature found in the instrument to find out the said signature are coped up and found similar with any of the specimen signatures found in the specimen signatures maintained by the record.  

9.      As discussed above,  since the signature found in cheque Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 are similar when compared with the signatures found in the specimen signatures maintained by the bank particularly with  the second signature in page No.1 of the Ex.B2 and the signature found in page No.2 of  Ex.B2,  the opposite party bank would have passed the said cheques for encashment.  Therefore  as submitted by the counsel on record for the complainant the opposite party bank has not taking  proper care in processing to pass the said Ex.A2  and Ex.A4 cheques has returned the cheques as signature found in the said cheques are differ from specimen signature maintained by the bank records.  Therefore the act of returning the said cheques by the opposite party is amount to deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

 10.     It is also pertinent to note that the opposite party bank has miserably failed to note that the said cheques are crossed cheques the amounts are to be paid to its  bearer’s  accounts.  Such  nature of the said cheques returned by the opposite party as signature differ from the specimen signature of the complainant maintained by the opposite party bank records, that too on in valid  reason as stated above is on gross negligence which amount to deficiency of service is acceptable.    Considering the compensation of Rs.98000/- claimed by the complainant as exorbitant and he is entitled only for just compensation. 

11.     Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-  as compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant and as such the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.

         In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as  compensation for mental agony  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupee Five thousand  only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant  within  six weeks  from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order passed till the date of realization.

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this  7^th   day of August  2015.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                      PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 28.10.2008     - Copy of statement of Kodak Mahindra Prime Ltd.,

Ex.A2- 15.2.2010      - Copy of dishonoured cheque.

Ex.A3- 16.2.2010      - Copy of return Memo.

Ex.A4- 15.1.2010      - Copy of dishonoured cheque.

Ex.A5- 20.2.2010      - Copy of Return memo.

Ex.A6- 11.3.2010      - Copy of letter by the complainant.

Ex.A7- 11.3.2010      - Copy of acknowledgement by the opposite parties.

Ex.A8- 2008-2010      - Copy of statement of account issued by the opposite parties.

Ex.A9- 3.4.2010        - Copy of advocate notice to the opposite party.

Ex.A10- 7.4.2010     -  Copy of Ack. signed by the opposite party.

Opposite parties’ side documents: -    

 

Ex.B1- 10.12.2011     - Copy of authorization letter.

Ex.B2- 6.1.2011        - Copy of specimen signature maintained by the opposite party.

 

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                      PRESIDENT.