BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.427 of 2014

Date of Instt. 02.12.2014

Date of Decision :02.09.2015

Kulwinder Kaur wife of Jagiri Ram R/o Patti Duniya Ki, VPO Bilga, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Vijaya Bank, Main Bazaar Bilga, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

2. Vijaya Bank, Head Office, 41/2, Trinity Circle, MG Road, Banglore.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Nanda Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Balwinder Singh Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant and her husband are having a joint saving bank account with opposite party No.1 and they are maintaining the same. The complainant is paying the necessary charges as charged by the opposite parties and the opposite parties provides with many facilities/services to complainant against charges, hence the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties provided cheque book facilities to the complainant being its consumer. The husband of the complainant had unfortunately lost two blank signed cheques of the complainant bearing No.251601 & 251602. On 24.8.2012 the husband of the complainant being joint account holder made written request to the opposite party No.1 for stopping the payment of the above said lost cheques. The opposite party No.1 after accepting the request of the husband of the complainant entered the serial numbers of the lost cheques in computer of the bank and took the necessary charges from the account of the complainant. In the month of December 2012 the complainant received a legal notice from one Rawwel Singh son of Harpal Singh R/o Patti Bhalay Ki, VPO Bilga, Tehsil Phillaur regarding dishonour of cheque bearing No.251602 with remark of “Insufficient Funds”. As the complainant is illiterate person so she did not understand the legal notice and to see the name of opposite party No.1 in the legal notice she went to office of opposite party No.1. The employees of the opposite party No.1 after seeing the legal notice did not disclose their mistake, negligence and deficiency in their service and misguided the complainant and took the signature of the complainant on some blank paper and also give false assurance. In the month of February 2013 the complainant received summon from the court of Ms.Parvinder Kaur, JMIC, Phillaur. The complainant approached to an advocate and on the advice of her counsel the complainant appeared before the court and said court granted the bail to the complainant. Then after appearing before the above said court the complainant come to know that the Rawwel Singh who is resident of the village of the complainant, after forging the lost blank signed cheque of the complainant, filed a false complaint against the complainant. The complainant after appearing before the said court approached the opposite party No.1, then the official of opposite party No.1, after accepting the negligence on their part assured the complainant that when the court will summon the opposite party No.1, they will produce the application as well as other documents in evidence to bring the truth on record. But when the complainant summoned the bank for evidence, the officials of opposite party No.1 did not produce original application and other record of complainant rather produced the wrong and false application. Due to illegal act, negligence/deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1, the complainant has been convicted by the court. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay her compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant has mentioned only cheque bearing No.251602, but has not mentioned any date regarding dishonour of said cheque. In the absence of exact date of dishonouring of said cheque, proper reply can not be given. Assuming without admitting, if complainant through her husband has even requested for stop payment of said cheque, the complainant can not be discharged from her liability under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, if she had issued any cheque to someone. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for both the parties.

6. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. It is not disputed that the complainant was having account in the opposite party No.1 bank. The husband of the complainant had given instructions to the opposite party bank by giving an application Ex.C3 dated 24.8.2012 that two cheques which were having signatures of her wife Kulwinder Kaur have been lost and payment of the same may be stopped. The above said letter is having stamp of the opposite party bank. This fact is also evident from copy of document Ex.C10 showing that stop payment instructions were also feeded in the computer. The opposite party bank has also produced cheque returned register Ex.OP1 wherein against the cheque of Kalwinder Kaur stop payments is mentioned. The opposite party bank has also produced copy of judgment Ex.OP2 filed by Rawel Singh against the complainant under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act regarding dishonouring of the cheque in respect of which the husband of the complainant had given instructions regarding stop payment alleging that two cheques bearing signature of her wife had been lost. From the perusal of the judgment Ex.OP2 produced by the opposite parties, it is evident that cheque No.251602 dated 23.11.2012 amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- shown to have been issued by the complainant was dishonoured by the bank with the memo dated 24.11.2012 bearing remarks “Insufficient Funds”. The husband of the complainant had given instructions regarding stop payment on 24.8.2012. So the opposite party bank should have returned the cheque in question as unpaid with the memo bearing remarks “stop payment” and not with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. It constitute deficiency in service on its part. Whether this fact was going to make any difference in the decision of the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed against the complainant is a different matter and it is not for this Forum to comment upon the same, particular when the appeal against the order of the Lower Court is still pending before the Appellant Court. The opposite party bank returned the cheque in question with wrong memo bearing remarks “Insufficient Funds” whereas it should have been returned with the remarks “Payment Stopped”.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and complainant is awarded Rs.10,000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance be made within 30 days. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

02.09.2015 Member Member President