BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.389 of 2016

Date of Instt. 09.09.2016

Date of Decision:12.06.2018

Ashok Chabbra son of Shri Lachhman Dass, resident of W.N. 25, Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Prime Tower, G.T. Road, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar.

2. The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Unit 4, Model Town Road, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Amit Beri, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Manmohan Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.

Sh. SC Sood, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is having saving bank account bearing No.6609000100013903 with OP No.1 and the complainant issued a cheque bearing No.246976 dated 13.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,51,785/- drawn at PNB, Prime Tower, Jalandhar in favour of the OP No.2. On 20.05.2016, the complainant received an intimation from OP No.2 that the above said cheque issued in favour of the OP No.2 has been returned dishonoured by OP No.1 with the remarks “Signature Differ” and bank charges Rs.125/- has been levied upon the complainant by OP No.2. Moreover, Rs.573/- has been debited from the complainant's account due to dishonour of cheque. It is pertinent to mention here that no change has taken place in the signature of the complainant and moreover, the complainant has also withdraw an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from his account through cheque on 23.05.2016 and the officials of the bank informed the complainant that there is no change in the signature of the complainant. Due to illegal act on the part of the OP, the complainant was constrained to pay Rs.2,52,490/- instead of Rs.2,51,785/- to the OP No.2. Thereafter, the complainant feeling aggrieved got served legal notice dated 09.07.2016 through his counsel upon the OPs calling the OPs to repay the amount illegally deducted from the account of the complainant as bouncing charges and OP No.2 to repay Rs.125/- levied upon the complainant as bank charges and further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment and mental agony and deficiency in service, but all in vain and accordingly, this complaint filed.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant is guilty of concealment of facts as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that as the complaint requires lot of evidence of handwriting expert as such, the same is not maintainable before this Forum and further alleged that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, para No.1 is a reply being a matter of record and further submitted that the cheque in question was returned by the Clearing Cell i.e. Punjab National Bank, Regional Collection Centre, with the remarks 'Signature Differ'. If there would have been any difference minor or otherwise in the signatures, then the bank official must have returned the cheque to safeguard the interest of the customer while performing his officials duties and further submitted that on the request of the complainant, a sum of Rs.698/- i.e. Rs.573/- as Bank charges for return of cheque and Rs.125/- charges by the LIC just to honour the complainant being the valuable customer of the OP No.1, were reversed by the OP No.1, to the account of the complainant on 02.08.2016 and further alleged that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1, as such, the question of any harassment and mental agony to the complainant does not arise at all. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

3. OP No.2 appeared and filed its separate written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OP No.2 has been unnecessarily implicated as party and has suffered at the hands of the complainant and unnecessarily dragged into litigation and further alleged that there is no cause of action against OP No.2 and further submitted that earlier also Rashmi Chhabra wife of Ashok Chhabra has similarly got her cheque dishonoured and filed a complaint against OP No.2 along with bank also and further submitted that the above fact shows that it is the modus operandi of the complainant. On merits, the factum in regard to charges of Rs.125/- from the complainant is admitted, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant Ashok Chhabra tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence and then counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A along with some documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP1/5 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone the case file very minutely.

7. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is only that he is having saving bank account bearing No.6609000100013903 with the bank of OP No.1. In order to pay the premium of the insurance policy, the complainant issued a cheque bearing No.246976 dated 13.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,51,785/- drawn at PNB, in favour of the OP No.2, but the said cheque of the complainant was returned as dishonoured by the OP No.1 with the remarks 'Signature Differ' and accordingly, levied bank charges of Rs.125/- by the OP No.2 and OP No.1 also debited Rs.573/- from the account of the complainant due to dishonoured of the cheque and further complainant alleged that the cheque of the complainant was dishonoured by the OP intentionally, which is clear cut negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore, the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.573+125 from both the OPs alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

8. We have considered the plea taken by the OP No.1 and find that as per version of the OP No.1, the said amount of Rs.573+ Rs.125/- as charged by the bank for return of the cheque as well as by the LIC of Rs.125/- in total 698/- was reversed back in the account of the complainant on 02.08.2016. We considered and came to conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of either of the OPs because it is the duty of the official of the bank to minutely verify and compare the signature of the customer put on the cheque with the specimen signature and if there was minutely doubt came into notice of the official of the bank, then they can return the same being dishonoured and this fact is with the safe guard and interest of the complainant/customer and it cannot be considered as deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP and moreover, the said amount allegedly deducted by the OPs i.e. Rs.573/- + Rs.125/-= Rs.698/- have been already debited in the accont of the complainant on 02.08.2016 much prior of filing the present complaint, which is filed on 09.09.2016 and the grievances of the complainant was already meeted out by the OPs and thus, we do not find any force in the argument put forth by learned counsel for the complainant and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

12.06.2018 Member President