Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/584/2017

Mohd. Shahnawaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mahendra Pal Adv. & Harminder Singh Adv.

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	584 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	01.08.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	08.08.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Mohd. Shahnawaj, Aged 32 years son of Sh.Tahir Husain, R/o House No.55-A, Ravindra Enclave, Phase-III, Baltana, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali     

 

             …..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

1]  The Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Regional Office, Plot No.1, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

2]  The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, SCO No.167-168, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Parties

 

3]  Mohd. Femid Ali son of Sh.Abdul Hamid, R/o H.No.1217, Mori Gate, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 

….. Proforma Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE: SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

        MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA      MEMBER

        SH.RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :-

 

Sh.Mahendra Pal, Counsel for the complainant.

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

1]       Mohd.Shahnawaj, the complainant in the present complaint has stated that he had Current Account No.2451201000721 opened in 2007 under the name of his firm - M/s Cooling Point and also had Current Account No.2451201000788, opened in the year 2009 under his firm of M/s Climax India, with Canara Bank.  The bank has issued cheque books for both the accounts to the complainant to facilitate his business transactions.  The complainant stated to have issued cheque No.140759, dated 01.10.2015 for Rs.5.00 lacs from the account of his firm M/s Climax India in Current Account No.2451201000788 in favour of Mohd. Femid Ali/OP No.3.  The cheque was, however, dishonoured by Canara Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh with remarks       “DRAWER SIGNATURE DIFFERS”.

         The Complainant has filed this complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 i.e. Canara Bank on charge of deficiency in service on account of dishonouring of his cheque, which resulted into criminal proceedings against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as in criminal case FIR No.49, dated 19.2.2016, U/s 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh. 

 

2]       The contentions raised by the complainant in his complaint and other documents on file have been thoroughly examined at the admission stage and observe:-

 

1. The cheque issued by the complainant has been dishonoured by the Canara Bank because of signature of drawer on the cheque did not tally with the specimen signature of the account holder in their record.  The bank is duty bound to clear the payment on cheque only after fully satisfying itself about the correctness and authentication of signature of the drawer.  The District Fora cannot sit as an appellate authority on the decision of the bank for refusing to make the payment due to variation in the signatures of the drawer on the cheque and specimen signatures available in their record. 

 

2.  The action of the officials of the bank in dishonouring of the cheque of the complainant did not amount to deficiency in service on their part in the absence of any evidence of bias & wrongful intention on the part of the bank official(s) and the bank cannot be penalized for dishonouring of cheque.

 

 

3]       The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in State Bank of India Vs. Pushpakala R Jimulia,  while deciding the revision petition, on identical facts, has categorically held that ‘the dishonouring of cheque by the bank due to signature mismatch   per se does not amount to deficiency in service and the bank cannot be penalized on this account.’    

 

4]       The complainant has issued cheque in the current account maintained in the name of M/s Climax India, a firm involved in commercial activity and as such, does not come under the definition of ‘consumer’ as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The “Consumer” means any person, who  hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly prom­ised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

 

5]       Moreover, the cheque in question was dishonoured on 05.10.2015 and the complainant has never come forth to rectify his signatures in the bank or to make the payment to the other party/OP No.3 by way of cash or other mode and instead preferred to lay a false claim against the Bank through present complaint, which too has been filed on 01.08.2017 i.e. after a period of about 2 years of dishonouring of the cheque.  The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.

 

6]       Keeping in view the facts & circumstances, as discussed above, the present complaint before this Forum is misconceived and also being without merit, is hereby dismissed in limine.

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the complainant, free of charge and file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08^th August, 2017                           Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

                                                          Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER