DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

  (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

                                                                                                  Case No.261/2010

Sh. Ram Khiladi Nim

Director, Western Printing  Group

Survey of India New Building

Near Railway. Crossing, Palam

New Delhi-110010                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

Asstt. Manager

Union  Bank of India

(A Govt. of India Undertaking)

SDA Branch C/4 Community  Centre

New Delhi-110023                                        ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution  :  23.04.10                                                       Date of Order         :  04.02.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

As per the averments made in the complaint the Complainant gave cheque bearing No. 066124 dated  14.05.2009  for Rs.100000/- to one Sh. Kishan Sharma  for the purpose of purchasing latter’s second hand  Alto  Car  bearing No. DL 3C AW4276 but the same was dishonoured by the OP Bank on account “insufficient funds” in his saving account”.  It is stated that sufficient  amount of Rs. 2,40,453.90  was available in his bank account on that date; that amount  of Rs 75/- for  inward cheque return charges and Rs.47/-  for one day interest of Rs.1,00,000/- were also deducted from the account of the Complainant.  In order to avoid any inordinate delay in making advance payment of the car Complainant transferred the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-  to the said  Sh. Kishan Sharma electronically by visiting the bank on 19.05.2009. He made a request to the OP Bank for stop the payment of cheque No. 066124 in order to avoid duplicate payment and the OP Bank  deducted Rs.88.24 towards stop payment charges;  it was  all  due to negligence  and deficiency in service by the OP Bank. He not only suffered loss of the above said amounts but also heavily suffered for his integrity, breach of trust and towards loss  of  good faith  before Sh. Kishan Sharma. He made several requests to the OP Bank to  compensate him by paying him Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation but in vain. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for directing  the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to him by way of compensation, cost of expenses    

In the W.S the OP Bank  has inter-alia stated that the cheque in question dated 11.05.2009 was dishonoured  because the signatures of the Complainant   did  not tally  with his signature in the record of the bank and return memo dated 16.05.2009 was to be  tick marked as item No. 16 “Drawer’s  signature differs/required/ incomplete.” Under these circumstances the cheque was bound to be dishonoured  and there had been no loss to the complainant.  It is stated  that  the loss of Rs.75+47+88 was bound to be  borne  by the Complainant because the cheque in question  had been  dishonoured because  of his personal act. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

In the rejoinder the Complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Raja Jepher Beck, Principal Officer/ Senior Manager has been filed  in evidence on  behalf of the  OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the Complainant in person and have carefully gone through the record. 

The copy of the returning memo is “Annexure A.”  We mark it as exhibit 1 for the purposes of proper identification.  A perusal of  the cheque  return memo goes a long way to prove  that the  cheque in question  had been dishonoured  by the OP bank on account of “24  funds insufficient”  and not on account of  16 “drawer’s signature differs/ required/ incomplete”. The Complainant has filed a copy of his statement of bank account maintained by him in the OP bank which we mark as exhibit 2 for the purposes of proper identification. On the date  of dishonouring of the  cheque i.e. 16.05.2009 the Complainant had Rs. 2,75,767.66 in his bank  account.  Therefore,  in the  absence of any  cogent  evidence given by the OP we are  not  inclined to believe that the cheque in question had been dishonoured  because of the reason stated in  ground 16 of the cheque return memo.  Therefore, OP bank infact committed gross deficiency in services in dishonouring the cheque in question.  Therefore, we hold OP bank guilty of gross deficiency in service.

In view of the above discussion, we   allow the complaint and direct OP Bank to pay Rs. 25,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant  towards compensation for loss  of mental peace, agony, legal expenses etc. within a period of one month  from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP  shall become liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest @ 7% p.a.  from the date of this order till the date of realization.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 04.02.17.