Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/1132

AXIS BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TRUE HORIZON - Opp.Party(s)

24 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:24.08.2016

First Appeal No. 1132/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 15.03.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 1211/2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI, M-Block, Ist Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110001)

In the matter of:

Axis Bank Ltd

Formerly known as UTI Bank Ltd.

Statesman House

148, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi

Through its AVP & Authorised Signatory               .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

True Horizon

Through Mr. Karan Pahwa (Partner)

4852, Katra Subhash

Chandani Chowk

Delhi-110006                                                  ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum VI New Delhi. Vide impugned orders complaint was allowed and the UTI Bank Ltd. was directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 3 lac alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of credit of the cheque i.e. 24.01.2005 till the date of its realisation. Besides this, compensation inclusive of litigation charges of Rs. 50,000/- was also awarded.
2.      Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant M/s True Horizon had a current account with UTI Bank Ltd. (in short the OP). Complainant deposited a cheque dated 18.01.2005 for an amount of Rs. 3 lac, drawn on Bank of India (through HDFC Bank) with the OP bank. Complainant made enquiries of his balance in the account on 20.01.2005. He found that the cheque in question was not credited to his account. He also came to know that certain officials of the OP bank had misused the cheque in question. A writing:‘M/s True Horizon (Prop.)’ was made on the cheque. The cheque was credited to the account of one Sh. Vir Singh Panwar on 24.01.2005.
3.      Defence raised by the OP was that the ‘pay in slip’ was not signed by its staff.
4.      Ld. District Forum observed that the OP bank concealed the factum of mischief committed by its staff. OP bank did not proceed against its staff or said Sh. Vir Singh Panwar. No investigation of any sort was conducted by the OP bank.
5.      Present appeal is filed on the grounds inter alia that the alleged encashment of cheque by fraud involves criminal investigation. For this reason, the complaint ought have been heard by the Ld. District Forum. Appellant simply stated that he was not at fault and was not liable to make any payment. OP also submitted that the cheque was collected by HDFC Bank and Bank of India Karol Bagh New Delhi paid the same.
6.      I have heard the arguments addressed by Sh. L.R.Goel Advocate at length. Appellant wants this Commission to hold that the cheque was never presented by the complainant with the OP. OP contends that the HDFC Bank presented the same to Bank of India. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the OP that the complainant had a bank account with HDFC Bank K.G.Marg New Delhi. In the absence of such a plea, it does not stand to reason that the complainant would present the cheque for getting it credited to his account. Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that the writing, ‘Vir Singh Panwar’ is in a different handwriting. It was this writing that led to the mischief. Money went to a wrong bank account. OP/appellant bank cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the mischief committed by its employees. Why the OP did not take any action against its employees, leads to an adverse inference against the OP. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed.
7.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
8.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)​