ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11 and 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is president of The Janta Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. Patti. The above said society is maintaining saving bank account with the Tarn Taran Central Cooperative Bank branch Patti in the name of The Janta co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. Patti and the account Number is 191134002000013. The said account is operated by the president and vice president as per resolution passed by the society. Specimen signatures of both president and vice president are given to the bank and they are the only eligible to operate the account. At present Sh. Dinesh Kumar is president and Smt. Harneet Kaur is vice president and are operating the above said account and are authorized to operate the above said account. The signatures/ ID proofs/ photographs already have been submitted of both the representatives/ operators of account of the society with the Patti Branch are on the record of the bank as per resolution of society alongwith signatures which are also loaded in the computer of KYC. The above said society submitted a cheque bearing No. 042509 dated 16.2.2019 for Rs. 50,000/- through Yes Bank Batala Road, Amritsar for clearing. The above said cheque was returned on 18.9.2019 with the objections that the signatures of the operators does not match as per the record of the bank. The above said cheque is returned due to the negligence of the bank/ opposite party No. 1. After receiving the cheque from the payee bank a legal notice was issued to District Manager by name for the verification of the facts as specimen signature of representatives operators are on the record of bank Branch Patti alongwith photographs, but the officials of the bank shown irresponsibility in this matter and did not take any step to get the payment made to the society. It is astonished to note that Rs. 50,000/- were paid against a cheque which was not signed by the appropriate operators according to the resolution of the society. This is done with the connivance of the officials of the Patti branch/ opposite party No. 1 with illegal manners without checking of the signatures of the operators on the cheque. The complainant approached the District Manager and Managing Director of the bank i.e. opposite parties No. 2 and 3 personally for rectification of the error committed by the opposite party No. 1 and for the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- withdrawn illegally from the account of society i.e. complainant due to this illegal deed heavy loss has been caused to the society. The complainant has prayed for following reliefs:-
- The opposite parties may be directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- withdrawn illegally from the saving bank account of society alongwith interest @18%
- A compensation t the tune of Rs. 20000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, loss of work suffered to the complainant society due to negligent and deficiency in service and unprofessional conduct and working of the officials of the opposite party may also be granted.
- The litigation expenses which this commission deem just and proper for the filing and perusal of complaint against the opposite party may also be awarded to the complainant.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record memo of returning cheque Ex. C-1, legal notice dated 13.6.2019 Ex. C-2, copy of cheque and postal receipts Ex. C-3 to C-5 and C-8, Copy of application to D.M.Ex.C-6, copy of statement Ex. C-7, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-9.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant alleging himself to be president of the Janta Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Patti which is a registered society under the Punjab cooperative society Act, 1961, which is a special Act. Similarly, the opposite parties are a Co-operative Bank established under the provisions of Punjab Cooperative society Act, 1961 and the dispute between the parties can only be decided through arbitration and as provided in Section 55 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act 1961,. This commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the dispute in between the parties, if any. The provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, have also overriding effect being a special Act. The account with the bank is of Janta Cooperative Labour and construction Society Patti and is not of Danesh Kumar complainant. The complaint could only be filed by the account holder society and cannot be filed by any other person because Danesh Kumar is not the consumer and is not cover under the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2 of the consumer Protection Act. It is alleged in Para No. 1 of the complaint that the complainant Danesh Kumar is president of Cooperative Society but that does not entitle him nor he has got any legal right to file the present complaint because simply by being a president of the account holder Society, he cannot be a complainant, the complaint could only be filed by the society itself, through any other person but cannot be filed by any person on behalf of the society. The said account is operated by the persons duly authorized thorough a resolution passed in the general meeting of the society and the said authorized person can operate the account. The specimen signature of the person authorized to operate the account are given in the bank. As per the cheque issued by the society cheque No. 042509 dated 16.2.2019 was signed by Danesh Kumar and Harneet Kaur for and on behalf of the Janta Co op L/C Society Limited and another cheque No. 017488 dated 16.2.2019 was signed by Danesh Kumar and Anita in favour of one Gaurav Anand for Rs. 50,000/- and this cheque was deposited by said Gaurav Anand in his bank Punjab National Bank Amritsar and after clearnce room the respondent Bank it was duly credited n his account on 18.2.2019 as is clear from the computer generated accounts statement of Gaurav Anand and the cheque number was wrongly shown in computer general account statement of the OP bank as 042509 instead of 017488 due to computer mistake. The other cheque NO. 042509 dated 16.2.2019 in favor of Danesh Kumar himself was actually dishonoured due to mismatch of the specimen signatures but due to computer mistake the cheque NO. 42509 dated 16.2.2019 was shown to have been paid in clearing on 18.2.2019 whereas, actually it was the other cheque No. 017488 as which was paid through clearing and as mentioned above. The alleged cheque is returned to one Ashok Kumar and not to the cooperative society or to complainant Danesh Kumar, it is not mentioned as to who this Ashok Kumar is moreover, the cheque has been returned by Yes Bank Limited with the reason signature mismatch. The respondent has no knowledge of return of any cheque by Yes Bank from Batala Road, Amritsar on 18.9.2019, the date mentioned by the complainant in this Para as date of return of the cheque. The payment of Rs. 50,000/- through bank clearance by Gaurave Anad was made legally and there was no error or connivance of any official of the Patti Branch of the Opposite Party Bank. As already submitted the society had issued this cheque for Rs. 50,000/- on 16.2.2019 and was duly signed by authorized persons for and on behalf of the society. This cheque was received for clearance through Punjab National Bank, Amritsar and was duly credited in the account of said Gaurav Anand by his banker. There is no question of any rectification and there is no question of any recovery Rs. 50,000/- by the society. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Paramjit Singh District Manager Ex. R-1, computer generated account statement of Gaurav Anad R-2, computer generator account statement of cheque dishonor report of IDBI Bank (The Central Clearing Agency) R-3.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record by both the parties.
4 From the combined and harmonious reading of the documents and pleadings on record is going to prove that Sh. Danesh Kumar being the president of the Janta Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Limited Patti issued a cheque bearing No. 042509 dated 16.2.2019 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- through Yes Bank Batala Road Amritsar for clearance and the said cheque was returned on 18.9.2019 with the remarks that the signatures of the operators do not match as per record of the bank. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the signatures/ I D proof / Photographs already have been submitted with the Patti branch are on the record despite that the official of the bank shown irresponsibility and did not take any step to make the payment made by the society. Further, contended that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- were paid against the cheque which was not signed by the appropriate operators according to resolution of the society and this was done with the connivance of the officials of the Patti Branch with illegal manner without checking the signatures of the operator on the cheque, as such, the complainant approached the District Manager and M.D of the bank i.e. opposite parties No. 2 and 3 personally for the rectification of the error committed by the opposite party No. 1 and for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- which was withdrawn illegally from the account of the society.
5 On the other hands, the opposite parties stated that the complainant alleging himself to be the President of the Janta Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Limited Patti which is a registered society under the Punjab cooperative Society Act 1961, as such, dispute between the parties can only be decided through arbitration and provided in Section 55 of the Cooperative Society Act 1961. In this regard, we are of the opinion that the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy which is available to the consumers as such, this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the dispute between the parties.
6 Further the opposite party has taken the objection that since the account is in the name of Janta Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Limited Patti and is not of Danesh Kumar complainant, the complaint could only be filed by the account holder society and cannot be filed by any other person because Danesh Kumar is not the consumer and is not covered under the definition of the consumer. Since, the account is being run by the Janta Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Limited Patti through its president Danesh Kumar and we are agreed with the version of the opposite party that this complaint should have been filed by Janta Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Limited Patti through its president i.e. Danesh Kumar. On this simple score, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, one cheque, which was issued by Danesh Kumar in favour of Gaurav Anand for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- bearing No. 017488 dated 16.2.2019 which was duly credited in the account of bearer but inadvertently in the computer generated statement the cheque Number was wrongly mentioned i.e. 042509 which was duly admitted by the opposite parties. So the complainant cannot take the plea that the same cheque has been credited in to the account of other person. The copy of cheque placed on record Ex. C-5 was issued by Danesh Kumar in his name was duly returned to the complainant with the remarks mismatch of signatures, however, the complainant has placed on record Ex. C-1 though the cheque Number is same but it is addressed to some Ashok Kumar and this account Number is also differ, as such, it has no relevancy with this complaint.
7 From the above said discussion, it is very much clear and proved by the opposite party that a cheque bearing No. 017488 in the name of Gaurav Anand was credited in the account of bearer and the cheque which was issued by the complainant himself in his name has not been honoured/encahsed for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- because the said cheque was returned to the complainant with the remarks signatures mismatched.
8 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
02.03.2023
