DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 209/2019

Date of Institution: 04.07.2019

Judgment Reserved on: 28.11.2024

Judgment Passed on: 28.11.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Judgment By: Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

JUDGEMENT

The Complainant Sh. Madan Lal Singha (since deceased) alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs in wrong credit of the amount to a different account in a different bank altogether of a cheque issued by him to OP1 causing him financial loss and mental agony.

1. Sh. Madan Lal Singha was maintaining a Demat and Trading Account No.DL-275 with OP1. He used to purchase shares from the market on regular basis and payment of all the purchases of shares was promptly made by him to OP1.   
2. In November 2017 in order to square off the balance outstanding in his account the Complainant  Sh. Madan Lal Singha  issued a cheque bearing No.018467 dated 29.11.2017 drawn on OP2 i.e. Central Bank of India for Rs.100000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) in favour of OP1 and the cheque was collected by OP1 from his residence.
3. The said cheque was cleared on 01.12.2017 and an amount of Rs.100000/- was debited from the account of Sh. Madan Lal Singha in Central Bank of India however in January 2018, the Complainant was shocked when he was informed by OP1 that the payment of cheque was not received by them and OP1 demanded immediate payment. When questioned that the cheque was collected by OP1 only and was cleared by OP2 then OP1 simply informed that the cheque was stolen and no payment was received by them.
4. On account of above said non-payment, OP1 marked lien over 4500 shares of ‘Corporation Bank’ belonging to Mr. Madan Lal Singha and retained the same in its pool account and informed that the shares would be deposited in his Demat Account once payment was received by them.
5. The Complainant was further shocked to note when he received statement of account of his share portfolio dated 20.02.2019 that OP1 had additionally charged and debited the account of the Complainant with an amount of Rs.6757/- and refused to reverse the said entry. 
6. Complainant also stated that on 05.12.2017 officials of Indusind Bank (since deleted) had filed complaint with the Police Station Sector-20 Noida for theft of cheques of their branch which included the cheque issued by the Complainant. The account of the Complainant was debited on 01.12.2017 whereas the police complaint was lodged by Indusind Bank on 05.12.2017.
7. It was further alleged that the cheque No.018467 dated 29.11.2017 of the Complainant after the theft was manipulated /fabricated to change the name of the payee from Well India Securities  ltd. to Dinesh Kumar and the same was tendered by Canara Bank (since deleted) for encashment through OP2 i.e. Central Bank of India and both Canara Bank and Central Bank allowed the transaction to happen without due diligence which resulted in the amount getting credited in the account number 200999257922 maintained with Canara Bank in the name of Dinesh Kumar from where the same was withdrawn. The cheque in question was issued in the name of OP1 i.e. Well India Securities Limited whereas the same was presented and encashed in the name of Dinesh Kumar and this glaring irregularity should have been checked at the time of presentation of the cheque by Canara Bank as well as Central Bank of India. 
8. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:

• To direct OPs jointly and severally to compensate the loss of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 18% from the date of encashment of the said cheque till the actual payment or in alternative

direct OP1 to remove /release lien from the Demat Account of the Complainant w.r.t. 4500 shares of Corporation Bank and transfer the same in his Demat Account.

• To direct OP1 to refund/reverse amount of Rs.6757/- which was illegally debited from the account of the Complainant by way of alleged interest and also to refund any other interest charged in the account of the Complainant (if any).
• Grant compensation of Rs.100000/- to the Complainant towards mental pain and harassment.
• To direct OP1 to pay Rs.50,000/- for illegally retaining/holding over 4500 shares of Corporation Bank purchased by the Complainant.
• Grant cost of Rs.30,000/- towards litigation to the Complainant.

Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Initially the Complainant had made four OPs as mentioned in the title of the judgment however vide order dated 07.01.2020 Indusind Bank and Canara Bank were deleted. The Complainant thereafter filed Amended Memo of Parties retaining i.e. Well India Securities Ltd. and Central Bank of India  as OP1 and OP2 and filed amended Memo of Parties. However, the title of the judgment mentions all four OPs for the sake of clarity. 
10. During the course of the proceedings the Complainant Sh. Madan Lal Singha expired on 27.04.2021 and vide order dated 01.12.2021 his LRs namely 1) Mrs. Asha Singha, 2) Mr. Rohit Singha and 3) Mr. Mohit Singha all residents of 87 Kiran Vihar, Vikas Marg Extension, Delhi -110092 were brought on record and Amended Memo of Parties was also filed and they further pursued the case.   
11. On 04.08.2022, it was ordered that since the only OPs i.e. Well India Securities Ltd. and Central Bank of India were served on 03.03.2022 / 04.03.2022 and they have not filed any reply, they were proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter the said OPs stopped appearing in the Commission till the date of final arguments.
12. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence of Mr. Mohit Singha wherein he has marked the following documents as exhibits:

• Statement of Account of Demat and Trading Account as exhibit CW 1/1. 
•  Statement of Account of Late Sh. Madan Lal Singha maintained with Central Bank of India as exhibit CW 1/2.
• Copy of Demat Ledger Summary as exhibit CW 1/3.
• Copy of complaint made by official of Indusind Bank along with copy of cheques and deposit slip of Indusind Bank as exhibit CW 1/4.  

13. This Commission has heard the arguments and perused the records.

The case of the Complainant has otherwise gone unrebutted as no reply has been filed by OP1 and OP2 i.e. Well India Securities Ltd. and Central Bank of India.

From the documents marked as exhibits, it is evident that late Sh. Madan Lal Singha was maintaining Demat Account No.DL-275 with OP1 and he had issued cheque No.018467 dated 29.11.2017 drawn on Central Bank of India in favour of OP1 i.e. Well India Securities Ltd. for Rs.100000/-. This cheque was collected by the staff of OP1 and the same was tendered by them to their Bank i.e. Indusind Bank for presentation in clearing.  However, the said cheque was stolen on 29.11.2017 by some person from Indusind Bank for which Indusind Bank lodged complaint with Police Station Sector-20 Noida on 05.12.2017 and it was also stated by the officials of Indusind Bank in their letter dated 07.12.2024 that in the CCTV Footage of 29.11.2017 it was found that one customer had stolen the cheque from the front desk.

14. The cheque No.018467 dated 29.11.2017 was tendered by the Complainant to OP1 – Well India Securities Ltd. was encashed on 01.12.2017 by debiting the account of the Complainant for credit in account no.200999257922 the name of one Dinesh Kumar in Canara Bank instead of the actual payee i.e. Well India Securities Ltd. in their account in Indusind Bank. 
15. Now, the question which the Commission is going to deal is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP1 – Well India Securities Ltd. as well as OP2 i.e. Central Bank of India in the case.   

On perusal of the copy of cheque in question i.e. Cheque No. 018467 dated 29.11.2017 (copy of which has been filed with the complaint and also marked as exhibit CW-1/4 (Colly) it is apparent that the said cheque was issued to OP1 i.e. Well India Securities Ltd. by Late Sh. Madan Lal Singha and the same was in possession of Indusind Bank who was the Banker of OP1 i.e. Well India Securities Ltd. and therefore the possibility of change of name of payee by the Complainant under his due authentication was not  there.

16. Further Indusind Bank reported theft of the said cheque to the Police on 05.12.2017 whereas the cheque was already encashed in wrong account on 01.12.2017 by changing the name of the payee i.e. Well India Securities Ltd. to Dinesh Kumar without authentication by the Account Holder as the original cheque was already in custody of OP1 and their Banker – Indusind Bank and obviously cheque in question was tampered by the person who stole it and he changed the name of the payee from Well India Securities Ltd. to Dinesh Kumar.

The cheque in question was then presented in clearing by Canara Bank which was a tampered cheque and after passing of the cheque by OP2 – Central Bank of India, the amount was credited in the account of alleged Dinesh Kumar in Canara Bank from where the same was withdrawn.

17. Thus, from the above it is clear that OP1 i.e. Well India Securities Ltd. failed to safely get the credit of the cheque in question i.e. Cheque No. 018467 dated 29.11.2017 which was in their custody and was stolen on 29.11.2017 from the custody of  their Bank – Indusind Bank resulting in wrongful loss to the Complainant to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-.
18. When the amount was not received by OP1 from the Complainant on account of above irregularity then instead of acknowledging the mistake, OP1 further went ahead and imposed interest of Rs.6757/- on the Complainant on account of non-payment besides holding of 4500 shares of Corporation Bank which the Complainant had purchased and lien was marked on the same by OP1 and shares were not transferred in the Demat Account of the Complainant causing him financial loss as well as mental agony.
19. From the above, it can be safely concluded that OP1 is deficient in service in losing the cheque in question i.e. Cheque No. 018467 dated 29.11.2017 by Indusind Bank which was their Bank from its custody and OP2 for passing the cheque presented in clearing on 01.12.2017 which was a tampered cheque causing financial loss to the Complainant and holding them liable  for deficiency in service, this Commission orders as follows:

• OP1 and OP2 shall jointly and severally pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.12.2017  to the LRs of the Complainant in equal share within 30 days from the receipt of this judgment.    
• OP1 shall pay Rs.6757/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 01.12.2017  to the LRs of the Complainant in equal shares within 30 days from the receipt of this judgment.     
• OP1 and OP2 shall jointly and severally pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and also Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses to the LRs of the Complainant in equal shares. 

This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment failing which OP1 and OP2 shall pay interest @ 12% p.a. on all the above amounts from 01.12.2017 till the date of realization. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.