Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 102.
Instituted on : 27.02.2019.
Decided on : 02.03.2020.
Raj Singh son of Shri Bhagwan Singh, resident of VPO Gaddi Kheri, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Rohtak, through its Chief/Regional Manager.
- Punjab National Bank, branch Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak, through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Paramdeep Sheemar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri S.P. Gulati, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant is having his account No.1953000100352810 with Punjab National Bank, Outer Quilla, Rohtak/respondent no.2 and respondents also issued cheque book of this Bank account in favour of complainant. At the time of opening the aforesaid account, the respondent no.2 Bank had obtained the specimen signature of the complainant in record for transaction taken place in the aforesaid account and copy of specimen proforma for KYC updation containing the specimen signature of complainant were verified by the respondents and kept in their record. The complainant issued the said cheque bearing no.428904 for an amount of Rs. 8850/- on dated 14.8.2018 in favour of President Ram Kishan Paramhans Education Society, Madina, Rohtak, who presented the said cheuqe for its clearance in its Account Oriental Bank of Commence, Sector-3, City, Rohtak but the official of respondents returned this cheque unpaid vide returned memo dated 18.8.2018 remarking therein “Drawer’s signature differs”. When the complainant came to know about the fate of said cheque, then he and his grand-son suffered a great mental shock. The signatures of complainant on his KYC form and on the cheque are same and there is no difference but the officials of respondents not performing their duty in responsible manner. The respondents have debited/deducted an amount of Rs.354/- from the account of complainant in lieu of said cheque. The complainant served legal notice vide registered post dated 5.12.2018 through his counsel which was replied on false and vague facts. There is deficiency in service on the port of respondents. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to credit the amount of Rs.354/- which has been deducted from the account of complainant on account of said cheque alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its deduction till actual realization and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment as well as pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply submitted that as there was difference in signature on the presented cheque and specimen signatures with Bank so the dealing official rightly and correctly being under legal obligations returned the cheque in the interest of the complainant to avoid any fraud in payment of cheque due to non matching of signatures. It is incorrect that the officials of the respondents acted in irresponsible and arbitrary manner and written any illegal remarks while returning the above said cheque rather it is submitted that the officials of respondents acted diligently and being under legal obligations rightly returned the cheque due to mismatch of signatures. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on 16.8.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.R-I and document Ex.R-II and has closed his evidence on 25.10.2019.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case, the respondent officials have not placed on record any documents to prove that the signatures of the complainant were different from the signatures mentioned in KYC of the complainant. No such technical report or expert report has been placed on record to prove this fact by the respondent officials. If there was some discrepancy in signatures , in that situation, respondent officials should make a telephonic call to the complainant or sent an SMS regarding this fact but this exercise has not been done by the respondent. Hence the amount of Rs.354/- has wrongly been deducted from the account of the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to credit the amount of Rs.354/- in the account of complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deduction of alleged amount till its realisation and shall also pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.03.2020.
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
