DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 417
Instituted on: 05.08.2019
Decided on: 22.02.2024
Udit Goyal aged about 28 years son of Shri Rakesh Kumar Goyal, resident of H.No.108, Street No.32, Near Vishal Mega Mart, Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. YES Bank Limited, Branch Office: Ground and Basement, SCF No.26, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
2. YES BANK Limited, Corporate Office, Nehru Centre, 9th Floor, Discovery of India, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 through its Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
QUORUM
JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT
SARITA GARG ; MEMBER
KANWALJEET SINGH : MEMBER
For the complainant : In person
For the Ops : Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.
ORDER
KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
1. The complainant has alleged in this complaint that the complainant is a consumer qua the Ops. He has opened one saving bank account no.085792000002637 with the OP no.1. On 23.05.2019 the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.1,51,067/- in his own name and presented the same with DCB Bank Sangrur for the purpose of making FDR. On 29.05.2019 the complainant was shocked to receive intimation from DCB Bank, Sangrur regarding the dishonour of cheque for the reason of signature differ. On 29.05.2019 the complainant again issued another cheque and the same was honoured by the OPs. In first cheque dishonouring of cheque by OPs on vague grounds, as such the Ops have committed deficiency in service qua the complainant and lastly prayed that the Ops may kindly directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and further to pay Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version. On merits, the Ops in para no.3 (b ) and admitted that the complainant issued cheque no,.440328 dated 23.05.2019 for Rs.1,51,067/- and presented with the DCB Bank Sangrur. Ops further admitted this factum the cheque was dishonoured for the reason of signature differ of the complainant. Scanned copy of cheque was shared by DCB Bank with their head office which inturn shared the same with the clearing office of the Ops at Gurgaon for clearance. The signature on the cheque of the complainant was compared with the signatures of complainant maintained in the system by the OPs. Due to difference in the signature the cheque was returned to the presentee bank as dishonoured and intimation regarding the same was given to the DCB Bank by the OPs. Another cheque dated 29.05.2019 presented by the complainant was rightly cleared by the OPs. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The remaining allegations are denied by the Ops and prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed.
3. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his self attested affidavit Ex.C-1 and some documents which are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties have produced Ex.Ops/1 affidavit and Ex.Ops/2 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.
6. Now, come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
7. No doubt it is admitted by both the parties that on 23.05.2019 the complainant issued cheque no.440328 for Rs.1,51067/- and presented with DCB bank, Sangrur. It is not disputed the cheque ( supra) was dishonoured on the ground “ drawer signatures differ” . Further, it is admitted fact that the another cheque no.440331 dated 29.05.2019 presented with the DCB Bank branch Sangrur which was duly issued by the complainant. The signatures of the complainant on the second tallied with standard signatures and cleared the cheque. The burden of proof upon the OPs to justify their stand with regard to rebut the signature of the complainant is mismatch between the first cheuqe dated 23.05.2019 and the OPs bank system.
8. The primary issue for consideration before this Commission is “ whether any change in the specimen signatures of the complainant since 23.05.2019 to 29.05.2019 in the system of the OPs bank or not ?
9. It is writ large on the file since 23.05.2019 to 29.05.2019 there is no change with regard to the specimen signatures of the complainant in the system of the OPs bank. Moreover, OPs failed to prove this factum by way of cogent, reliable and truthworthy evidence on record regarding the solid ground to dishonour the first cheque dated 23.05.2019 on the ground of “drawer signatures differ”. However, the Ops did not make any efforts to examine the handwriting expert to prove the genuineness of the drawer’s signatures are differ. We feel that the official of OPs committed an irregularity in hurry to clear the first cheque dated 23.05.2019. From this angel, the act and conduct of the OPs is fully proved qua the complainant with regard to deficiency in service. This is a fit case to redress the grievance of the complainant.
10. Per contra, the secondary issue for determination before this Commission the complainant has alleged in his complaint in para no.3 ( c )that on 06.06.2019 the complainant alongwith his friend namely Bhushan Kumar approached the OP no.1. The employee of the OPs misbehaved with the complainant. This Commission has the considered view from the dictum the complainant version is not believable due to lack of authentic and reliable primary evidence. Oral evidence is a weak evidence before the eye of law. Documentary evidence prevails over the oral evidence. To prove his case, the complainant has failed to examine the witness Bhushan Kumar’s affidavit in his evidence. Rather the boot is on the other foot. We feel that the story concocted by complainant regarding misbehaved by official of OPs is obiter dicta.
11. Resultantly, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint in hand and with careful analysis of the evidence available on record, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.4000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. This order be complied with by OPs within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
13. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance
Announced.
February 22, 2024
( Kanwaljeet Singh) ( Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)
Member Member President
BBS/-
