Samaresh Kumar Mitra,  Member:

              The case of the complainant is that he received a telephone call on 04.102013 from one Dipak Kumar being the representative of Banerjee consultancy of Dalhousi, Kolkata for providing business loan from Punjab National Bank or UCO bank and on 05.10.2013 he  issued a cheque of Rs.150/- as proceeding fee to one Vikash for getting loan from Punjab National Bank and filled the application form for loan. The petitioner operates a cash credit account with the OP bank being no.6553. That on 07.10.2013 the petitioner received a message from the OP that an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- has been withdrawn from the account of the petitioner. The petitioner went to the branch and enquired the cheque and saw that it was the said cheque which he endorsed to Vikash on 05.10.2013. He surprised to notice that the endorsement of A/C payee and the words and numerical of the amount has some how erased and in the place and substitution of Rs.112,000/- has been incorporated and as the endorsement has been erased the aforesaid cheque transferred into a bearer one and the person with fictitious name has withdrawn the huge amount. The ink used for substitution of the amounts over the cheque visibility differs with the concentration of the ink used by the petitioner to put his signature over the aforesaid cheque. It is a general rule that the holder of cash credit A/C doesn’t issue a bearer cheque and if it so happens it is a liability of the opposite party to verify the same to contract with the petitioner before clearance of the cheque. The manipulation over the cheque clearly visible, the ink used for incorporation of the amount differs with ink signed and without observing the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India disbursed the amount from the cash credit account. This act of the OP is gross negligence and gross deficiency of service for which the petitioner had to suffer great monetary loss as mental agony. The petitioner filed advocate notice but the OP has not yet complied with. He prayed a direction upon the OP bank to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- with interest and a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

           The OP appeared by filing written version and denied the allegations as leveled against them and averred that the statements made in paras 1-17 of the alleged petition of the complainant herein are partly true & partly false. They also averred that the complainant herein issued the cheque No.203641 dated 05.10.2013 amounting to Rs.112000/- only in favour of Virender Singh willfully and intentionally and there is no question of tampering in fresh eye of bank personals and in this regard they didn’t made any question about the same. The complainant herein with mal intention and cruel attitude make a baseless cock and bull story about the fraud of the said cheque for realization of his aforesaid amount in any way and as a result whereof he came before the bank with uncleaned hand and malafide nature and lastly filed the instant case for justice and equity with mal intention. It is the fact that the time of clearing the cheque No.203641 dated 05.10.2013 amounting to Rs.112000/- only is clear and visible and there was no sign of tampering in it at the time of clearing of it at fresh eye of banking people and the OP herein craves relief from the allegation made at the petition or complaint by the complainant herein by the way of opinion of handwriting expert, whose expenses shall be incurred from the complainants fund otherwise the instant case shall be delayed. So the OP shall not or does not liable and/or responsible to pay any compensation.

 The complainant files evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

The OP filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of his written version and ………

Both sides filed written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.

              Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full.

              From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

    1. Whether the Complainant Abhisek Mukherjee ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

    2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

    3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards

        the Complainant?

4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether

    the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

                 In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based

   on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Abhisek Mukherjee ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?                                                       ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

              From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.The complainant herein being the customer of the OP bank maintaining his savings account and loan accounts for a prolonged period so being a consumer is entitled to get service from the OP .

          (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                 Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complainant prayed for a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- with interest and a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

  (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service            towards the Complainant?         

           The complainant being a customer of the OP bank issued a cheque amounting to Rs.150/- to one Bikash vide cheque no.203641 dated 05.10.2013 in the name of PNB. That on 07.10.2013 he received a message of withdrawl of Rs.112000/- from his cash credit account. On enquiry he saw the account payee cheque had been erased and the cheque has been turned into a bearer one and the amount of Rs.150/- had been substituted into Rs.112,000/- and the cheque has been tampered and the concentration of the ink used to sign is different. The complainant raised his objection and asked the opposite party that why the manipulated cheque has been honoured without an enquiry from the complainant and the bearer cheque cannot be cleared through a cash credit account. Then he lodged a complaint before the Mogra P.S. and on the basis of the said complaint Mogra P.S. started a specific case being case No.293/13, U/S-420/465/468/471.IPC dated 07.10.2013.The complainant informed the matter to the bank but of no result then the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum for Redressal. The Sole OP in his written version assailed that the complainant herein issued the cheque No.203641 dated 05.10.2013 amounting to Rs.112000/- only in favour of Virender Singh willfully and intentionally and there is no question of tampering in fresh eye of bank personals and in this regard they didn’t made any question about the same. During the course of investigation the Police of Mogra P.S. went to the bank and perused the impugned cheque. It is pertinent to mention that the OP assailed that the complainant may take the help of the handwriting expert in relation to tampering the signature as well as numerals at his own expense.

          From the above discussion and perusing the case record we can see that the complainant alleged the deficiency of service of OP bank for disbursing the cheque issued by this complainant which is tampered and the account payee cheque had been erased and turned into a bearer one and the amount has been changed to Rs.112000/- instead of Rs.150/-. It appears from the FIR dated 07.10.2013 lodged by the complainant to officer- in-charge Mogra P.S. that the complainant issued one cheque bearing no.203641 amounting to Rs.150/- dated 05.10.2013 then one Dipak enquired the complainant that whether he deposited money in his account and thereafter he deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in his account so that the accused Dipak can withdraw the amount of Rs.150/-. In the next line of the FIR it is alleged that the cheque was encashed by one Virendra Sigh by writing 112000/- erasing Rs.150/- which the complainant has given to the Bikash. Lastly he admitted that he was cheated by the name of giving loan for business purpose and prayed to investigate the matter. The complainant was fully aware that a lump sum amount is to be credited in his C.C. account so that the cheque will be disbursed by the bank. Then why the he is blaming the bank for deficiency of service. It is difficult to ascertain whether the cheque was tampered by the accused without getting the report of expert. If it is detected by the bank officials then they could stop the payment So the allegation of the complainant is not proved at all.   

    From the above discussion we may safely conclude that the complainant could not prove his case  by producing sufficient documents that OP is deficient in providing service to its consumer. So the prayer for relief before this Forum is not tenable.

  4).   whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the     opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

     The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could not prove his case and the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation and damages for suffering of this complainant.

ORDER

              Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.75/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite party with no order as to cost.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.

            Dictated and corrected by me.