DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA

No.2083/1, Subhash Nagar, 1st Cross, Mandya-571401

consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/133

Sri.M.R.Nagaraju
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Vijaya Bank
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Smt.A.P.Mahadevamma
2. Sri.M.N.Manohara
3. Sri.Siddegowda


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


COMPLAINANT/S Sri.M.R.Nagaraju S/o Raju, R/o Vokkalageri Pete, Malavalli Town, Malavalli. (By Sri.M.J.Jain., Advocate)


-Vs-


OPPOSITE PARTY/S Vijaya Bank, Malavalli Branch, Malavalli, Rep. by its Manager. (By Sri.Thimme Gowda., Advocate)


Date of complaint 15.12.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 29.12.2008 Date of order 03.03.2009 Total Period 2 Months 4 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for a direction to Opposite party to pay D.D. amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 24% p.m. as damages and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs alleging deficiency in service.


2. The case of the complainant is that he is a driver by occupation. The complainant intended to purchase a lorry to earn his livelihood. So, he approached Sri Rama Finance Pvt. Ltd., Channapatna for loan and it has sanctioned loan and issued a D.D. for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.458844 dated 01.10.2008. The complainant presented the said D.D. on 11.10.2008 for encashment. Even after considerable time, the proceeds of the D.D. were not credited to his account. The Opposite party was giving evasive reply, when he was approaching. Ultimately on 24.11.2008, the Opposite party has written a letter to the complainant stating that the D.D. had been lost in transit. The complainant sustained loss of earning of Rs.30,000/- p.m. apart from paying installments and burdened with payment of interest on the loan amount. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.



3. The Opposite party has filed version disputing some of the allegations. It is the case of the Opposite party that the complainant had presented the muticity cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- for collection through his S.B. A/c 21457 on 11.10.2008 and not the demand draft as pleaded. The allegation that the D.D. was not credited to his account even after considerable time in spite of several demands to know the status etc., are all false. The Opposite party has intimated the complainant stating that the cheque has been lost in transit. The allegations that the complainant has obtained loan to purchase the vehicle for his livelihood, due to loss of D.D. he could not purchase the vehicle and lost the income of Rs.30,000/- p.m. and suffered mental agony are all false. The allegations that as per the agreement with the Financier, the complainant has to pay the monthly installment and interest due to the negligence of the Opposite party are all false and created. The complainant has misled the Opposite party stating that he has deposited D.D. for Rs.1 lakh for collection. The Opposite party had asked the complainant to produce the counter-foil to know the nature of instrument. But, the complainant has not all produced the counter-foil or co-operated with the Opposite party to trace the instrument. On thorough search the instrument was found and it was sent to service branch at Mysore. On enquiry, it came to the notice of the Opposite party that instrument has not reached the service branch. Immediately, the Opposite party has collected the details of Srirama Transport & Finance Co. and sent a letter requesting to stop payment and also to issue duplicate cheque, knowing these efforts of the Opposite party, the complainant has approached the firm and asked them not to issue duplicate cheque and warned them of consequences. The Opposite party sent a registered letter and C.O.P. to the firm and copy to complainant on 24.11.2008. Subsequently, the Opposite party has sent indemnity bond to firm on 29.11.2008. Still the firm was reluctant to issue duplicate cheque stating that the complainant was objected. The Opposite party contacted the Legal Adviser of the firm and sent the representation of the complainant on 4.12.2008 and thereafter, the Opposite party has received the duplicate cheque on 15.12.2008 and the cheque amount was credited to the account of the complainant on 17.12.2008. Under these circumstances, the complainant with an ulterior motive of wrongful gain had deliberately mislead the Opposite party and intentionally caused delay by using high-handedness against the firm. Therefore, there is no delay or deficiency on the part of the Opposite party. The Opposite party has taken quick and effective measures to secure the instrument. The complainant has not at all approached this Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the materials facts with ulterior motive. The complainant is not at all entitled to any relief. Therefore, the complaint is to be dismissed with costs.



4. During trial, the complainant is examined as CW.1 and one witness also examined and produced documents Ex.C.1 to C.5. The Opposite party is examined and produced the documents Ex.R.1 to R.13.


5. The complainant has filed written arguments.


6. We have heard the arguments of Opposite party and perused the records.


7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 2. Whether the Opposite party is liable to pay the D.D. of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.m. and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-?


8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:-

9. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is a customer of the Opposite party Bank having account No.21457 in Opposite party Bank. According to the complainant, he presented the D.D. for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.458844 dated 01.10.2008 issued by Srirama Finance Pvt. Ltd., Channapatna for realization on 11.10.2008. The proceeds of the D.D. was not credited to his account and Opposite party was giving evasive reply, whenever he was enquiring and later Opposite party wrote a letter on 24.11.2008 stating that the D.D. has been lost in transit and hence the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service, but the Opposite party has denied the said allegations. According to the Opposite party, the complainant has misled stating that the D.D. was presented. Though the Opposite party asked for the counter-foil to know the true nature of the instrument, the complainant did not produce the counter-foil or co-operated with the Opposite party to trace the instrument. On thorough search, it was found that the complainant has presented muticity cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- for collection and not the D.D. and it was sent to service branch at Mysore for collection and came to know that the instrument has not reached the service branch and lost in transit. So, it is proved that the cheque presented by the complainant and not D.D. pleaded by the complainant was lost in transit. But, the evidence and the records clearly established that the Opposite party did not keep quiet, but has taken serious efforts and keen interest to collect the information of the cheque and also collect the amount and in this regard, the complainant has not co-operated. According to the complainant, on 24.11.2008 the Opposite party wrote a letter stating that the D.D. has been lost in transit. But Ex.C.2 reveals that nowhere the Opposite party has stated that the D.D. is lost, but the letter was sent to Sriram Transport Finance Co., Channapatna stating that “Sri.Nagaraja presented muticity cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.458844 dated 01.10.2008 drawn on State Bank of India, Channapatna Branch for collection through our branch and same has been lost in transit; subsequently, we have sent a letter on 13.11.2008 for stop payment of the instrument and you have confirmed over phone the said instrument stop payment instructions have been sent and the same is not encashed. Hence, we request you kindly to issue duplicate cheque in this regard at the earliest”.


The copy of the said letter is sent to the complainant as per Ex.C.2 and it is Ex.R.2 produced by the Opposite party by registered post to the Sriram Transport and Finance Co. Thereafter, the complainant has given a petition to the Opposite party as per Ex.R.4 (Ex.C.1) on 27.11.2008 making allegations against the Opposite party again stating that the D.D. for Rs.1 lakh was presented to the bank for collection, but proceeds was not credited to his account and has sustained loss and claimed loss of Rs.5,00,000/- in addition to D.D. amount and first installment of loan and in this application Ex.R.4, the complainant did not whisper about the receipt of the letter Ex.C.2 about the lost of the muticity cheque in transit, though it was sent by certificate of posting to the complainant as per Ex.R.3 on 24.11.2008. The Opposite party Bank is in Malavalli Town. Even the complainant is residing at Malavalli Town and naturally the letter Ex.C.2 should have reached the complainant within two days. In spite of it, he did not whisper the loss of cheque in his application Ex.C.1 (Ex.R.4), but continued to mislead the bank stating that the D.D. for Rs.1,00,000/- was presented and proceeds were not credited to his account. So, it clearly reveals that only after the Opposite party Bank traced the cheque and after sending the same for collection and coming to know the lost in transit, it informed the complainant stating that it is not a D.D. but it is a cheque. Further, as per Ex.R.12, the Opposite party Bank sent a letter dated 13.11.2008 to Srirama Transport and Finance Company Ltd., Channapatna about the lost of muticity cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- and requested to stop payment.



Further, the representation of the complainant was sent to Sriram Transport & Finance Co., with letter Ex.R.5 on 04.12.2008. Ex.R.10 is the copy of the muticity cheque and Ex.R.13 proves apart from oral evidence of the Opposite party that he has made several telephonic conversations with Srirama Transport & Finance Co., in this matter about the lost of cheque in transit and to issue duplicate cheque and thereafter they have written letter as per Ex.R.2 to send the duplicate cheque, since it was not sent.


After approaching the legal adviser of the Opposite party Bank, they sent the letter of indemnity bond as per Ex.R.7 on the stamp paper to issue duplicate cheque and thereafter Srirama Transport & Finance Co., Ltd., by its letter dated 15.12.2008 handed over the another cheque bearing No.45918 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant Sri.Nagaraju through the Opposite party staff Sri.Siddaraju along with a letter Ex.R.9 and thereafter, the said cheque was sent for collection and amount was credited to the account of the complainant on 17.12.2008 and it was informed to the complainant through his cell phone which reveals in Ex.R.13 and it is not denied by the complainant and according to the complainant, after giving the letter Ex.C.1 to the Opposite party, he has not at all visited the Opposite party Bank.


The delay in sending duplicate cheque by the Srirama Transport & Finance Co., Ltd., which sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant was due to the objection raised by the complainant as per the evidence of Opposite party. In view of the several phone calls made and the efforts made by the Opposite party it is clear that the finance company which sanction the loan, delayed to issue of duplicate cheque, only after persuasion through the legal adviser of Srirama Transport & Finance Co., though the indemnity bond was sent earlier, they sent another cheque. Otherwise, the Srirama Transport & Finance Co., would have definitely sent the duplicate cheque earlier, because earlier to the petition by the complainant Ex.C.1 on 27.11.2008 to the Opposite party bank, the Opposite party Bank had informed as per Ex.C.2 to the complainant and Srirama Transport & Finance Co., about the lost of the cheque in transit and requested to stop the payment and the same was confirmed through phone and sought for issue of duplicate cheque. So, from 13.11.2008 till 15.12.2008 the Srirama Transport & Finance Co., delayed the matter only due to the objection by the complainant, because he had given the petition to the Opposite party Ex.C.1 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with the D.D., amount otherwise he would approach Court of law.



10. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is clearly established that though the cheque presented by the complainant was sent for collection, it was lost in transit and coming to know of the same, the Opposite party took all efforts to obtain the duplicate cheque to help the complainant from the Financier of the complainant and finally he was successful to get the cheque of the loan sanctioned by the complainant and collected the proceeds and credited to his account and informed the same to the complainant through his mobile phone. In spite of this knowledge, the complainant has filed this complaint on 15.12.2008, though the Opposite party has taken steps from 13.11.2008 about the lost of cheque and requisition to Srirama Transport & Finance Co., for stop payment and issued duplicate cheque on 13.11.2008 and further on 24.11.2008. Though there is delay in collection of the cheque amount, but it cannot be said that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and negligent in discharging the duty. On the other hand, the complainant has mislead the Opposite party and also this Forum stating that he had presented the D.D. for Rs.1,00,000/-, though the muticity cheque issued by Srirama Transport & Finance Co.,. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has not proved that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service.



11. The complainant has sought for D.D. amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.m. and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alleging deficiency in service by Opposite party, on the ground that he had obtained the loan to purchase the vehicle in order to earn his livelihood and because of lost of D.D. he could not purchase the vehicle and therefore, he sustained loss of income and he was made liable to pay interest on the loan amount. Apart from the evidence of the complainant, the complainant has examined a witness Sri.T.R.Ramachandra. He has deposed that there was an agreement in writing to sell lorry K.A-12-1609 to the complainant for Rs.1,90,000/- and the amount was not paid as per the agreement and he did not sell the vehicle to the complainant. According to him, it was agreed to pay the amount within two months to purchase the lorry. According to him, a sale receipt was written, but the sale receipt is not produced. Further, it is not the evidence of the witness Sri.Ramachandra that because of failure by the complainant to pay the amount, he has sold the vehicle to another. Naturally an agreement in writing would come into effect only in case advance is paid, but peculiarly this witness stated no advance amount was paid. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant and witness that there was a written agreement to purchase the lorry from the witness by the complainant for Rs.1,90,000/- cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the complaint it is stated that the complainant had entered into agreement with Sri.T.R.Ramachandra for Rs.1,90,000/- to purchase a lorry, but simply stated that he had availed a loan to purchase the lorry. So, if the price amount was Rs.1,90,000/- and loan obtained was Rs.1,00,000/- only, nothing prevented the complainant to pay balance of Rs.90,000/- at the time of agreement, there is no such payment at all. So, when the witness has stated that he has not sold the vehicle already to another, because of failure of the complainant, there is no hindrance for the complainant to purchase the said lorry, because as per the copy of the R.C. it is a old vehicle manufactured in December 1993 and it is a Eicher Company Truck. So, the evidence that complainant would have earned Rs.30,000/- per month apart from paying the loan installment is highly exhogarative. Further, the allegation of the complainant that he was burdened with payment of installment with interest, as the loan amount was not realized by the bank. The complainant has produced Ex.C.3 it indicates only, the due date of installment, the amount of loan and installment amount, there is no entry of payment at all.

The complainant has produced Ex.C.4 the loan ledger copy sent by Fax from Srirama Transport & Finance Co., and Ex.C.5 also another loan transaction. Ex.C.4 is for loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and first installment due by 20.11.2008 and Ex.C.5 is another loan extract towards the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and the first installment starts from 20.02.2007 and installment amount of Rs.9,660/- and for the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- installment at the rate of Rs.5,565/- is shown as paid from 20.11.2008 till 20.02.2009 as per Ex.C.4 and we cannot make out the amount paid to loan account of Rs.3,00,000/- in Ex.C.5. It cannot be accepted that without release of the loan amount, the Financier would demand the payment of installment with interest. Admittedly, only on 17.12.2008, the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- sanctioned by Srirama Transport & Finance Co., is encashed and legally only from that date the financier is entitled to charge interest and claim the installments. For this illegal activity of the Srirama Transport & Finance Co., the Opposite party is not liable, because Srirama Transport & Finance Co., itself has issued the duplicate cheque for the said loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and on 17.12.2008, the amount was credited to the account of the complainant and hence only after one month from that date, the finance firm is entitled to the interest and installment.




12. Under these circumstances, since the Opposite party has not committed deficiency in service. On the other hand, it has made all sincere efforts to trace the cheque, though all through the complainant pleaded that he has presented the D.D. and making hectic efforts with financier of the complainant with legal assistance, obtained the duplicate cheque and realised the amount and credited to the account of the complainant, but the complainant mislead the Opposite party suppressing the true facts and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for. As per the decision of Hon’ble National Commission, even in case of lost of cheque in transit, due to delay only compensation can be awarded and not the cheque amount with a direction to obtain a duplicate cheque is to be given.


But in the present case, even the complainant is not entitled to compensation, because the Opposite party has made sincere efforts to trace the cheque and made hectic efforts with the financier of the complainant and obtained the duplicate cheque and collected the amount of the cheque and credited to the complainant account within reasonable time and hence, the complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for.


13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 3rd day of March 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER) BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.133/2008 Order dated this the 3rd day of March 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.M.R.Nagaraju S/o Raju, R/o Vokkalageri Pete, Malavalli Town, Malavalli. (By Sri.M.J.Jain., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S Vijaya Bank, Malavalli Branch, Malavalli, Rep. by its Manager. (By Sri.Thimme Gowda., Advocate) Date of complaint 15.12.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 29.12.2008 Date of order 03.03.2009 Total Period 2 Months 4 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for a direction to Opposite party to pay D.D. amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 24% p.m. as damages and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs alleging deficiency in service. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is a driver by occupation. The complainant intended to purchase a lorry to earn his livelihood. So, he approached Sri Rama Finance Pvt. Ltd., Channapatna for loan and it has sanctioned loan and issued a D.D. for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.458844 dated 01.10.2008. The complainant presented the said D.D. on 11.10.2008 for encashment. Even after considerable time, the proceeds of the D.D. were not credited to his account. The Opposite party was giving evasive reply, when he was approaching. Ultimately on 24.11.2008, the Opposite party has written a letter to the complainant stating that the D.D. had been lost in transit. The complainant sustained loss of earning of Rs.30,000/- p.m. apart from paying installments and burdened with payment of interest on the loan amount. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint. 3. The Opposite party has filed version disputing some of the allegations. It is the case of the Opposite party that the complainant had presented the muticity cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- for collection through his S.B. A/c 21457 on 11.10.2008 and not the demand draft as pleaded. The allegation that the D.D. was not credited to his account even after considerable time in spite of several demands to know the status etc., are all false. The Opposite party has intimated the complainant stating that the cheque has been lost in transit. The allegations that the complainant has obtained loan to purchase the vehicle for his livelihood, due to loss of D.D. he could not purchase the vehicle and lost the income of Rs.30,000/- p.m. and suffered mental agony are all false. The allegations that as per the agreement with the Financier, the complainant has to pay the monthly installment and interest due to the negligence of the Opposite party are all false and created. The complainant has misled the Opposite party stating that he has deposited D.D. for Rs.1 lakh for collection.


The Opposite party had asked the complainant to produce the counter-foil to know the nature of instrument. But, the complainant has not all produced the counter-foil or co-operated with the Opposite party to trace the instrument. On thorough search the instrument was found and it was sent to service branch at Mysore. On enquiry, it came to the notice of the Opposite party that instrument has not reached the service branch. Immediately, the Opposite party has collected the details of Srirama Transport & Finance Co. and sent a letter requesting to stop payment and also to issue duplicate cheque, knowing these efforts of the Opposite party, the complainant has approached the firm and asked them not to issue duplicate cheque and warned them of consequences. The Opposite party sent a registered letter and C.O.P. to the firm and copy to complainant on 24.11.2008. Subsequently, the Opposite party has sent indemnity bond to firm on 29.11.2008. Still the firm was reluctant to issue duplicate cheque stating that the complainant was objected. The Opposite party contacted the Legal Adviser of the firm and sent the representation of the complainant on 4.12.2008 and thereafter, the Opposite party has received the duplicate cheque on 15.12.2008 and the cheque amount was credited to the account of the complainant on 17.12.2008.



Under these circumstances, the complainant with an ulterior motive of wrongful gain had deliberately mislead the Opposite party and intentionally caused delay by using high-handedness against the firm. Therefore, there is no delay or deficiency on the part of the Opposite party. The Opposite party has taken quick and effective measures to secure the instrument. The complainant has not at all approached this Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the materials facts with ulterior motive. The complainant is not at all entitled to any relief. Therefore, the complaint is to be dismissed with costs.


4. During trial, the complainant is examined as CW.1 and one witness also examined and produced documents Ex.C.1 to C.5. The Opposite party is examined and produced the documents Ex.R.1 to R.13. 5.

The complainant has filed written arguments. 6. We have heard the arguments of Opposite party and perused the records. 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 2. Whether the Opposite party is liable to pay the D.D. of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.m. and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-? 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is a customer of the Opposite party Bank having account No.21457 in Opposite party Bank. According to the complainant, he presented the D.D. for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.458844 dated 01.10.2008 issued by Srirama Finance Pvt. Ltd., Channapatna for realization on 11.10.2008. The proceeds of the D.D. was not credited to his account and Opposite party was giving evasive reply, whenever he was enquiring and later Opposite party wrote a letter on 24.11.2008 stating that the D.D. has been lost in transit and hence the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service, but the Opposite party has denied the said allegations. According to the Opposite party, the complainant has misled stating that the D.D. was presented. Though the Opposite party asked for the counter-foil to know the true nature of the instrument, the complainant did not produce the counter-foil or co-operated with the Opposite party to trace the instrument. On thorough search, it was found that the complainant has presented muticity cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- for collection and not the D.D. and it was sent to service branch at Mysore for collection and came to know that the instrument has not reached the service branch and lost in transit. So, it is proved that the cheque presented by the complainant and not D.D. pleaded by the complainant was lost in transit. But, the evidence and the records clearly established that the Opposite party did not keep quiet, but has taken serious efforts and keen interest to collect the information of the cheque and also collect the amount and in this regard, the complainant has not co-operated. According to the complainant, on 24.11.2008 the Opposite party wrote a letter stating that the D.D. has been lost in transit. But Ex.C.2 reveals that nowhere the Opposite party has stated that the D.D. is lost, but the letter was sent to Sriram Transport Finance Co., Channapatna stating that “Sri.Nagaraja presented muticity cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.458844 dated 01.10.2008 drawn on State Bank of India, Channapatna Branch for collection through our branch and same has been lost in transit; subsequently, we have sent a letter on 13.11.2008 for stop payment of the instrument and you have confirmed over phone the said instrument stop payment instructions have been sent and the same is not encashed. Hence, we request you kindly to issue duplicate cheque in this regard at the earliest”. The copy of the said letter is sent to the complainant as per Ex.C.2 and it is Ex.R.2 produced by the Opposite party by registered post to the Sriram Transport and Finance Co. Thereafter, the complainant has given a petition to the Opposite party as per Ex.R.4 (Ex.C.1) on 27.11.2008 making allegations against the Opposite party again stating that the D.D. for Rs.1 lakh was presented to the bank for collection, but proceeds was not credited to his account and has sustained loss and claimed loss of Rs.5,00,000/- in addition to D.D. amount and first installment of loan and in this application Ex.R.4, the complainant did not whisper about the receipt of the letter Ex.C.2 about the lost of the muticity cheque in transit, though it was sent by certificate of posting to the complainant as per Ex.R.3 on 24.11.2008. The Opposite party Bank is in Malavalli Town. Even the complainant is residing at Malavalli Town and naturally the letter Ex.C.2 should have reached the complainant within two days. In spite of it, he did not whisper the loss of cheque in his application Ex.C.1 (Ex.R.4), but continued to mislead the bank stating that the D.D. for Rs.1,00,000/- was presented and proceeds were not credited to his account.


So, it clearly reveals that only after the Opposite party Bank traced the cheque and after sending the same for collection and coming to know the lost in transit, it informed the complainant stating that it is not a D.D. but it is a cheque. Further, as per Ex.R.12, the Opposite party Bank sent a letter dated 13.11.2008 to Srirama Transport and Finance Company Ltd., Channapatna about the lost of muticity cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- and requested to stop payment.

Further, the representation of the complainant was sent to Sriram Transport & Finance Co., with letter Ex.R.5 on 04.12.2008. Ex.R.10 is the copy of the muticity cheque and Ex.R.13 proves apart from oral evidence of the Opposite party that he has made several telephonic conversations with Srirama Transport & Finance Co., in this matter about the lost of cheque in transit and to issue duplicate cheque and thereafter they have written letter as per Ex.R.2 to send the duplicate cheque, since it was not sent.

After approaching the legal adviser of the Opposite party Bank, they sent the letter of indemnity bond as per Ex.R.7 on the stamp paper to issue duplicate cheque and thereafter Srirama Transport & Finance Co., Ltd., by its letter dated 15.12.2008 handed over the another cheque bearing No.45918 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant Sri.Nagaraju through the Opposite party staff Sri.Siddaraju along with a letter Ex.R.9 and thereafter, the said cheque was sent for collection and amount was credited to the account of the complainant on 17.12.2008 and it was informed to the complainant through his cell phone which reveals in Ex.R.13 and it is not denied by the complainant and according to the complainant, after giving the letter Ex.C.1 to the Opposite party, he has not at all visited the Opposite party Bank. The delay in sending duplicate cheque by the Srirama Transport & Finance Co., Ltd., which sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant was due to the objection raised by the complainant as per the evidence of Opposite party.

In view of the several phone calls made and the efforts made by the Opposite party it is clear that the finance company which sanction the loan, delayed to issue of duplicate cheque, only after persuasion through the legal adviser of Srirama Transport & Finance Co., though the indemnity bond was sent earlier, they sent another cheque.




Otherwise, the Srirama Transport & Finance Co., would have definitely sent the duplicate cheque earlier, because earlier to the petition by the complainant Ex.C.1 on 27.11.2008 to the Opposite party bank, the Opposite party Bank had informed as per Ex.C.2 to the complainant and Srirama Transport & Finance Co., about the lost of the cheque in transit and requested to stop the payment and the same was confirmed through phone and sought for issue of duplicate cheque.


So, from 13.11.2008 till 15.12.2008 the Srirama Transport & Finance Co., delayed the matter only due to the objection by the complainant, because he had given the petition to the Opposite party Ex.C.1 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with the D.D., amount otherwise he would approach Court of law. 10. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is clearly established that though the cheque presented by the complainant was sent for collection, it was lost in transit and coming to know of the same, the Opposite party took all efforts to obtain the duplicate cheque to help the complainant from the Financier of the complainant and finally he was successful to get the cheque of the loan sanctioned by the complainant and collected the proceeds and credited to his account and informed the same to the complainant through his mobile phone. In spite of this knowledge, the complainant has filed this complaint on 15.12.2008, though the Opposite party has taken steps from 13.11.2008 about the lost of cheque and requisition to Srirama Transport & Finance Co., for stop payment and issued duplicate cheque on 13.11.2008 and further on 24.11.2008.

Though there is delay in collection of the cheque amount, but it cannot be said that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and negligent in discharging the duty. On the other hand, the complainant has mislead the Opposite party and also this Forum stating that he had presented the D.D. for Rs.1,00,000/-, though the muticity cheque issued by Srirama Transport & Finance Co.,. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has not proved that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 11. The complainant has sought for D.D. amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.m. and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alleging deficiency in service by Opposite party, on the ground that he had obtained the loan to purchase the vehicle in order to earn his livelihood and because of lost of D.D. he could not purchase the vehicle and therefore, he sustained loss of income and he was made liable to pay interest on the loan amount. Apart from the evidence of the complainant, the complainant has examined a witness Sri.T.R.Ramachandra. He has deposed that there was an agreement in writing to sell lorry K.A-12-1609 to the complainant for Rs.1,90,000/- and the amount was not paid as per the agreement and he did not sell the vehicle to the complainant.


According to him, it was agreed to pay the amount within two months to purchase the lorry. According to him, a sale receipt was written, but the sale receipt is not produced. Further, it is not the evidence of the witness Sri.Ramachandra that because of failure by the complainant to pay the amount, he has sold the vehicle to another. Naturally an agreement in writing would come into effect only in case advance is paid, but peculiarly this witness stated no advance amount was paid. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant and witness that there was a written agreement to purchase the lorry from the witness by the complainant for Rs.1,90,000/- cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the complaint it is stated that the complainant had entered into agreement with Sri.T.R.Ramachandra for Rs.1,90,000/- to purchase a lorry, but simply stated that he had availed a loan to purchase the lorry. So, if the price amount was Rs.1,90,000/- and loan obtained was Rs.1,00,000/- only, nothing prevented the complainant to pay balance of Rs.90,000/- at the time of agreement, there is no such payment at all.

So, when the witness has stated that he has not sold the vehicle already to another, because of failure of the complainant, there is no hindrance for the complainant to purchase the said lorry, because as per the copy of the R.C. it is a old vehicle manufactured in December 1993 and it is a Eicher Company Truck. So, the evidence that complainant would have earned Rs.30,000/- per month apart from paying the loan installment is highly exhogarative. Further, the allegation of the complainant that he was burdened with payment of installment with interest, as the loan amount was not realized by the bank. The complainant has produced Ex.C.3 it indicates only, the due date of installment, the amount of loan and installment amount, there is no entry of payment at all. The complainant has produced Ex.C.4 the loan ledger copy sent by Fax from Srirama Transport & Finance Co., and Ex.C.5 also another loan transaction. Ex.C.4 is for loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and first installment due by 20.11.2008 and Ex.C.5 is another loan extract towards the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and the first installment starts from 20.02.2007 and installment amount of Rs.9,660/- and for the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- installment at the rate of Rs.5,565/- is shown as paid from 20.11.2008 till 20.02.2009 as per Ex.C.4 and we cannot make out the amount paid to loan account of Rs.3,00,000/- in Ex.C.5.


It cannot be accepted that without release of the loan amount, the Financier would demand the payment of installment with interest. Admittedly, only on 17.12.2008, the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- sanctioned by Srirama Transport & Finance Co., is encashed and legally only from that date the financier is entitled to charge interest and claim the installments. For this illegal activity of the Srirama Transport & Finance Co., the Opposite party is not liable, because Srirama Transport & Finance Co., itself has issued the duplicate cheque for the said loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and on 17.12.2008, the amount was credited to the account of the complainant and hence only after one month from that date, the finance firm is entitled to the interest and installment. 12. Under these circumstances, since the Opposite party has not committed deficiency in service. On the other hand, it has made all sincere efforts to trace the cheque, though all through the complainant pleaded that he has presented the D.D. and making hectic efforts with financier of the complainant with legal assistance, obtained the duplicate cheque and realised the amount and credited to the account of the complainant, but the complainant mislead the Opposite party suppressing the true facts and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for. As per the decision of Hon’ble National Commission, even in case of lost of cheque in transit, due to delay only compensation can be awarded and not the cheque amount with a direction to obtain a duplicate cheque is to be given. But in the present case, even the complainant is not entitled to compensation, because the Opposite party has made sincere efforts to trace the cheque and made hectic efforts with the financier of the complainant and obtained the duplicate cheque and collected the amount of the cheque and credited to the complainant account within reasonable time and hence, the complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 3rd day of March 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)




......................
Smt.A.P.Mahadevamma

......................
Sri.M.N.Manohara

......................
Sri.Siddegowda

Sri. S. Mahesh, S/o Shivanand,

Aged about 45 years,

S.G.N. Medicals,

Municipal Complex,

Belur Road, Mudigere Town,

CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

(By Sri. B.S. Bharathi, Adv.)

V/s

OPPONENT:

The Manager,

Vijaya Bank,

Mudigere Branch,

MUDIGERE TOWN.

- ::: O R D E R ::: -

1. The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opponent for the deficiency of service in taking the lien of JND account and prays for a direction to pay interest on the JND account along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony along with court costs as detailed in the complaint.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-

The complainant is provided with Cash Credit Miscellaneous account (CCM) facility bearing No.115106110250002 and he is having two Jeevan Nidhi Daily Collection (JND) account in his name and one in the name of his daughter. The complainant has provided agricultural land measuring 8.19 acres valued at Rs.18 lakhs as a security and stock of his medical shop as collateral security to the CCM facility. He has also offered one individual as guarantor to the said account and the same was renewed from time to time by the opponent and he has not offered his JND accounts as a security to the said CCM facility.

Subsequently, he approached to the opponent for a closure of the account in the month of January 2008. But the opponent told that the JND account bearing No.5060 was liened to the above said CCM facility and that could not be closed. But the opponent has not disclosed about the lien at the time of renewal of the CCM account. The complainant used to close his JND account once in a year and used to clear off the loans obtained by him. But this time, he could not do so. Thereby, the complainant suffered difficulties and could not clear off his debts in time which affected his business of retail sale of drugs. As such there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opponent in taking JND account of the complainant as a security to the CCM facility without consent. In this regard also the complainant sought for clarification, but the opponent gave vague reply. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint against the opponent for the above referred reliefs and for revoke the lien of JND account bearing No.5060 as it was taken without consent of the complainant.

3. After the service of the notice, the opponent has appeared through their counsel and filed version wherein they have contended that the complainant was provided with cash-credit loan facility by the opponent bank and at the time of providing the facility, the complainant was also having two Jeevan Nidhi Daily Collection Accounts in his name and his daughter’s name. But he has not offered any agricultural land measuring 8.19 acres as security and also not offered security of stock in trade. But he has offered JND account as a security to the loan. The complainant has signed a letter of lien dtd.30.11.2007 and in the schedule of the said letter JND deposits are offered as a lien. Therefore, they got right of lien over the JND deposits. The complainant is well aware of having credited the lien of the said accounts and he has been informed of it at the time of renewal of the loan facilities and further the opponent bank has right to close the JND accounts at the end of each year and appropriate the available daily deposits towards the outstanding loans.

4. They further contended that as per the lien letter they have right to appropriate the deposits in both accounts towards the cash credit loan and other accounts and the complainant has admitted the right of the bank and the complainant is bound by all terms and conditions of the letter of lien. The opponent has clarified the said aspect to the complainant whenever he demanded for the clarification. As such, the complainant is not entitled to revoke the letter of lien relating to JND Account No.5060 or for claim of interest at 14% P.A. and he is also not entitled to get any compensation as claimed as there is no deficiency of service and further prays for a direction to pay the present loans with agreed rate of interest in cash-credit facility and other loans. Hence, the opponent prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as PW.1 along with the documents and the same have been marked as Exs.P1 to P3.

6. One Sri. M. vishwanatha Rai, Manager of opponent Bank has also filed his affidavit evidence as RW.1 along with the documents and the same have been marked as Exs.R1 to R4.

7. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties’ counsels.

8. Now, the points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-


i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opponent?

ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as sought?

iii) What Order?

9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1: In the Negative

ii) Point No.2: In the Negative

iii) Point No.3: See, as per order below

- ::: R E A S O N S ::: -

10. Point Nos.1 & 2: There is no dispute with respect to the complainant having two JND accounts in the opponent bank and also no dispute for having cash-credit loan facility with the opponent. The only dispute raised by the complainant is that he has not liened one JND account No.5060 to the said CCM facility. But the opponent has withheld the account from drawing the amount accumulated in the JND account. Hence, the complainant alleges for the deficiency of service.

11. On the contrary, the opponent has taken a contention that at the time of providing CCM loan facility to the complainant, he has given a letter of lien dtd.30.11.2007 with respect to the two JND accounts and once in a year the said accumulated amount was appropriated towards the cash-credit loan facility and other accounts and they have right of lien over the said deposits. As such there is no deficiency of service and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

12. Admittedly, the complainant in his affidavit and the complainant states that he used to clear off the loans through this JND account in the bank. The same was done by the opponent bank by virtue of lien over JND accounts. Such being the case, it is deemed that the complainant has given the deposits to the opponent bank as a lien and the letter of lien, which is marked at Ex.R1 produced by the opponent. On perusal of the letter of lien, which was duly signed by the complainant, we noted that in the schedule it is clearly mentioned that JND 5060 the deposit amount of Rs.65,000/- was liened. Such being the case, the complainant cannot claim for the amount deposited in JND and the opponent has no right to revoke the lien of JND account unless the CCM facility was closed and we found no deficiency of service on the part of opponent and also we found no grounds to appreciate the allegations made by the complainant against the opponent. As such the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Under these circumstances, we answer the point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative.

13. Point No.3: In view of our findings on above points the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed. In the result we pass the following order.



- :::O R D E R::: -

1. The complaint filed by the complainant against the opponent is hereby dismissed.

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

L. Koteswaramma, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Door No.20-3/1-26, Sai Krishna Residency, 4th Line, New Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada.
…… Complainant.

vs

1. M/s Vijaya Bank Ltd., (Regional Office), Rep by: Authorized Officer, 31-3-4B,
Masjid Street, Maruthi Nagar, Vijayawada -4.
2. M/s Vijaya Bank Ltd., Rep by: The Chief Manager, R.O., Vijayawada.

…. Opposite parties.


ORDER


1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

That the opposite parties published a sale cum public notice on 15.07.2008 for the sale of the schedule property mentioned therein but the said auction was not held on the said date and again published sale cum public notice by fixing the public auction on 22.09.2008 to sell the mortgaged property noted in the publication i.e., to say one B. Leelavathi indebted to the bank and that she failed to pay the loan so, the bank took possession of the property under the Securitization Act, and intended to sell the same for realization of its debt with some terms and conditions.


The complainant participated in the auction and she became the highest bidder and paid Rs.6,62,500/- being 1/4th amount and she has to pay the 3/4th within 15 days but later she asked for extension of time and the opposite parties extended time yet, the complainant failed to pay the remaining amount as she came to know that the property was not free of encumbrances and thereby the opposite parties played fraud and so there was correspondence between them but of no avail hence, the complaint asked for return of the amount and damages etc., on the ground that the acts of the opposite parties falls within the purview of deficiency in service but of no avail. Hence, the complaint.

2. The opposite parties filed version interalia denying the allegations but admitted that they have took possession of the property of Smt B. Leelavathi under Securitization Act, and gave publication in Telugu and English daily news papers and that the auction was conducted and knowing fully well the complainant participated in the auction and was the highest bidder and she paid 1/4th amount and failed to pay the balance amount of 3/4th within 15 days and time was extended but yet the complainant failed to pay the balance and there by violated the terms and conditions of Clause-4, Clause -9 and Clause -10 and further request of the complainant for extension of time was negatived and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties do not fall with the purview of Consumer Protection Act, and that their contract was not concluded so the remedy to the complainant is elseware and that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

3. No evidence is adduced on either side.

4. Perused the material.

5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:

I) Whether the dispute comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act?
II) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
III) Whether the complainant is entitled for return of the EMD and for damages?
IV) To what relief the complainant is entitled?

6. Point No.1: As could be seen from the material on hand there is no dispute that the opposite parties took possession of the property of Smt. Leelavathi under Securitization Act, and that they intend to sale the same in auction for realization of its debt and published in English and Telugu daily and that the complainant participated in the auction and she was the highest bidder and paid EMD or to say 1/4th of the amount and later failed to pay 3/4th amount and the averments of he complaint discloses that she enquired about the property and that the property was mortgaged to several others and that the opposite parties concealed the facts and so she failed to pay the balance and asked for return of the same.

As a matter of fact the complainant participated in the auction after going through the contents of the publication in Telugu and English daily papers and further averments of the version discloses that the bank authorities gave assurance etc., which is true why because the documents discloses the same, though not marked, but yet, the contract was not completed and so there is no scope to bring the parties at this juncture as consumer and service provider ofcourse, the complainant may contend that the opposite parties are service providers but that question only arises if the contract fructifies or completes but herein this case the contract was not completed and further to decide illegality the or wrong publication etc., it requires elaborate and voluminous evidence is required so as rightly pleaded by the opposite parties the remedy for the complainant is elseware and as it is there is no scope to decide the issue completely in the circumstances so no need to discuss further more and accordingly this point is answered.

7. Point No.2: When the contract is not completed the question of attributing deficiency of service to the opposite parties do not arise and accordingly this point is answered.

8. Point No.3: Since the dispute raised by the complainant in the complaint requires voluminous evidence so, this Forum is not competent to decide the claim of the complainant and accordingly this point is answered.

9. Point No.4: In the result, the complaint lacks merits and so it deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed but no costs. But however the complainant is at liberty to seek her remedy in an appropriate Forum if she so deserves and this order in any way is not an obstruction or hurdle to the complainant to proceed against the opposite parties for her remedies in a competent court of law.

R.Manjunatha,

S/o Rajanna,

A/a 27 yrs,

R/o No.667, Muneshwara

Block, III Cross, Pipeline Road,

Mallasandra, T.Dasarahalli,

Peenya, Bangalore-58.

…. Complainant.

V/s



The Vijaya Bank,

J.C.Road Branch,

No.14, J.C.Road,

Bangalore-560 002.

Reptd. By its Chief Manager.



…. Opposite Party







-: ORDER:-



This complaint is filed claiming Rs.4,00,000/- towards inconvenience suffered by the complainant and Rs.60,000/- towards the amount spent for treatment, from the Opposite Party on the following grounds:-



2. The complainant availed housing loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the Opposite Party Bank under loan account No.M.L.210243 at the end of the year 2003 and had mortgaged his house property which was yet to be constructed at No.667, 3rd Cross, I Main, Pipeline Main Road, Muneshwara Block, T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore-27. The loan was granted jointly in the name of the complainant and his parents. First six installments were deducted while granting the loan and therefore the payment of the 7th installment was to commence after the expiry of the six months from the date of disbursement of the loan. The term of the loan was 180 months and he was regular in payment of the installments. In a period of five years from the date of grant of loan, he has repaid about five lakhs.


Even after payment of five lakhs, the Bank claims that Rs.12,83,595/- is the outstanding balance. He was carrying on a small business in the name and style of HANUMAN TENT HOUSE at Totadagudaddahalli, Peenya for his livelihood. Due to some unavoidable problems, he was unable to re-pay some installments in time and therefore requested the Opposite Party for grant of some time for re-payment. But the Opposite Party started giving unbearable harassment to the complainant and the members of his family by hiring the recovery agents. The so-called recovery agents constantly threatened the family of the complainant in such a way that the complainant became a regular patient of convulsions. On account of the constant threat and attack made by the recovery agents, he closed the Tent House Business abruptly and has become unemployed. The members of his family are desperately frightened and are apprehending that they may be forced to commit suicide.


The complainant had to undergo regular treatment for convulsion at SPANDANA Hospital, Rajajinagar and has spent Rs.60,000/- for treatment. On 07/06/2008 he had requested the Bank to furnish the entire statement of account with intention to close the entire loan by selling his another house at T.Dasarahalli. But the Bank never supplied the same. On 22/08/2008 he also submitted a request letter to furnish statement of loan account, but the Bank refused to furnish the same. He issued legal notice dated 05/03/2009 that also fetched no result. Since the Bank failed to furnish the statement of account even after demand he is unable to reconcile his accounts and could not answer the demand notice of the Bank.


The Bank issued possession notice and thereby demolished his image. If the Bank had furnished the statement of account, it would have enabled the complainant to file the Income Tax returns and thereby raise certain personal loans for the purpose of settling the loan account with the Opposite Party Bank. The act of the Opposite Party has resulted in serious inconvenience and mental torture. The Bank is under the legal obligation to provide the statement of account to every Customer and therefore the refusal of the Bank clearly constitutes deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.





3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The complainant and his parents availed housing loan on 14/11/2003 agreeing to re-pay the same in 180 monthly installments. The account became irregular/NPA on 20/09/2005 itself. The Bank has issued notice on 19/12/2008 under SARFASEI Act 2002 granting 60 days time to re-pay the outstanding liability. The contention that the first six Installments were deducted initially while granting the loan is false. The contention that the complainant has requested the Bank to grant more time to re-pay the loan is false. The allegation that the Bank has engaged the service of the recovery agents and the said agents constantly threatened the family of the complainant and that the complainant became a regular patient of convulsions is false.


The allegation that the complainant closed his business due to the attack made by the recovery agents is false. The Bank never refused to furnish the statement of account that too when the complainant shows interest to close their entire loan as stated in the complaint. In-fact the Bank has provided the copy of the statement to the complainant when he approached the Bank in the usual business hours. In spite of it legal notice dated 05/03/2009 was issued by the complainant and the same is duly replied. The complainant has deliberately not referred to the reply to the legal notice issued by the Bank and as such the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.


The complainant has filed ASA No.137/2009 before the DRT, Bangalore challenging the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFASEI Act 2002 and also disputing the account. The main ground urged in the complaint for obtaining account extract is to re-pay the outstanding liability due to the Bank after verifying the account extract. The same issue is involved in the case filed before the DRT and as such this complaint is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the complaint. In spite of receipt of the account extract and in spite of the offer made by the Bank to provide the statement of account, the present complaint is filed. No justifiable ground is made out for grant of the relief claimed in the complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. The complainant has also filed the affidavit of one witness. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party.





5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?



2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?



6. Our finding to both points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-



-:REASONS:-

7. Along with the complaint, the complainant has produced the prescription issued by Dr.Sanjiv of SPANDANA NURSING HOME. This prescription is dated 15/01/2009. A reading of this prescription makes it clear that the complainant is suffering from epilepsy since eight years as on 15/01/2009 which indicates that since about January – 2001, the complainant is suffering from epilepsy. Admittedly the complainant has taken loan in the year 2003 namely on 14/11/2003 as stated in the version filed by the Opposite Party. Therefore, the complainant was suffering from epilepsy from nearly two years prior to the obtaining the loan from the Bank. The prescription produced by the complainant does not disclose that only on account of the attack made by the recovery agents of the Bank he had suffered convulsion as alleged in the complaint.


If the complainant suffered convulsion on account of epilepsy with which he is suffering since 2001, the allegation in the complaint that only on account of the attack made by the recovery agents of the Bank, he suffered convulsion cannot be believed. This appears to be a story concocted by the complainant to gain sympathy. In this view of the matter the affidavit of the witness for the complainant that on account of the threat of the recovery agents of the Bank, the complainant became a regular patient of convulsions and had to undergo regular treatment for convulsions at SPANDANA Hospital cannot be believed. The contention of the Opposite Party that the loan account of the complainant became irregular from 20/09/2005 itself is not disputed. If that is so, it goes to indicate that prior to 20/09/2005 itself the complainant had committed default in the matter of payment of installments towards discharge of the loan.


If really the overt act of the recovery agents of the Bank was such that the family members of the complainant became desperately frightened and are apprehending that they may be forced to commit suicide, nothing prevented the complainant to file a police complaint against the so-called recovery agents of the Bank. Nothing is placed on record to show that at any point of time prior to the complaint the complainant had filed complaint to police against the recovery agents of the Bank. In the version, the Bank has denied for having engaged any recovery agents. From the documents produced by the complainant himself, it is seen that on 04/03/2009, the Bank issued possession notice demanding possession of the mortgage property on or before 13/03/2009.


From what is stated in this notice it is also seen that the Bank had sent a letter dated 19/12/2008 demanding payment of Rs.12,83,595/- within 60 days. It appears after the complainant failed to comply with the demand made in the letter dated 19/02/2008, the Bank issued possession notice dated 04/03/2009. The complainant challenged the said notice in case No.ASA 137/2009 before the DRT at Bangalore and obtained an order of interim stay on 11/03/2009. The stay is granted subject to the complainant depositing Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 15/04/2009. During arguments, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the complainant has not even complied with the condition imposed by the DRT while granting the interim stay.


From the documents produced by the Opposite Party it is seen that the Bank has sent reply dated 13/03/2009 to the legal notice dated 05/03/2009 issued by the complainant and the reply was received notice by the counsel for the complainant on 14/03/2009. The complaint is filed on 11/05/2009 but no reference is made to the reply given by the Bank which was received by the counsel for the complainant on 14/03/2009. In the reply, the Bank has clearly stated that even now it is open to the complainant to approach the Bank to collect the particulars in respect of the balance amount of his SB account and loan account for which he need not be invited. It is not alleged in the complaint that after receipt of the reply, the complainant had approached the Bank demanding statement of account, but the Bank refused to furnish the same.


The complainant cannot expect the Bank to come to his threshold and furnish the statement of account. It is for the complainant to go to the Bank and get the same. Since the complainant was suffering from epilepsy long prior to the sanction of loan, if the convulsion was the effect of the said disease, the complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.60,000/- towards treatment expenses. We are unable to make out how the complainant is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- towards inconvenience suffered. The details of the inconvenience suffered by the complainant, is not disclosed in the complaint except that the complainant closed his tent house business on account of the threat of the recovery agents. But no documents are produced to show that the complainant was in-fact running such a business.


In these circumstances, we are not convinced with the claim of the complainant for grant of Rs.4,00,000/- towards inconvenience suffered. If the only purpose of the present complaint is to obtain the account statement pertaining to the loan account, in view of what is stated in reply to the legal notice, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Bank and obtain the statement of account. Thus, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank and therefore hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.

2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 02nd Day of JULY 2009.

COMPLAINANT:

Smt. Rajivi, Adult in Age,

Wife of Dr. K.R. Adyanthya,

D/o. Sri Archanna Shetty,

K.M. Road,

MUDIGERE.




V/s



OPPONENTS:

1. The Regional Manager,

The Agricultural Insurance Co., of –

India Ltd.,

Regional Office, 1st Floor,

Shankaranarayana Building,

25, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

BANGALORE – 560 001.



2. The Branch Manager,

Vijaya Bank,

MUDIGERE.





- ::: O R D E R ::: -

1. The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opponents for the deficiency of service in not settling the crop insurance of Rs.1,28,000/- and prays for compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with court costs as detailed in the complaint.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-

The complainant is a coffee grower having 60 acres and 12 guntas of coffee estate at Maasanige Village, Kalasa Hobli, Mudigere Taluk and she insured coffee crop for the year 2007 by paying Rs.7,240/- premium on 30.06.2007 through cheque and the same was encashed by the opponent and covered the risk of unforeseen crop loss. Due to untimely rain the entire coffee crop was suffered heavy loss and she could not get the crop as expected. Thus, the opponent has indemnified the loss and has prepared a statement and mentioned that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,28,000/- as compensation towards the loss of crop. But the opponent has settled the claim to all other farmers except this complainant for the best reasons known to them. Inspite of several requests and visits, the 1st opponent has failed to settle the claim. Subsequently, she issued a legal notice dtd.10.11.2008 demanding for payment of the claim amount of Rs.1,28,000/-. But inspite of service, the opponent neither settled the claim nor replied. Thus, they are at deficiency of service. Hence, the complainant prays for the payment of the said assured amount along with damages as prayed above.

3. After service of the notice, the 1st opponent has appeared through their counsel and filed version. The 2nd opponent is placed exparte.

4. The 1st opponent in their version has contended that the complainant has obtained a policy coverage for Arabica Coffee grown in his lands for 40 acres. The period of insurance is 1st July, 2007 to 31st August, 2007. As per the proposal form submitted by the complainant, she has mentioned Zone as Mudigere even though her lands are situated at Kalasa Zone as per the R.T.C. But the complainant has not enclosed the optional letter for change of Zone for Kalasa to Mudigere along with the proposal form. Hence, they have not settled the claim for the season. It is the condition under the Scheme to fill in the particulars of proposal form properly and for non submitting the proper option form along with proposal form, the opponent has not settled the claim. Hence, there is no deficiency of service.

5. The policy is based on the “Area Approach” Scheme and not on Individual Basis. Similarly, claims if any are settled on the basis of actual Rainfall of the reference rain gauge station i.e., Claims when become payable at uniform rate to all the insured growers are growing a particular variety of coffee. During the coffee season for the year 2007, as per the data received by this respondent and have paid eligible claims wherever rainfall is more than 35mm for more than 8 days consecutive. In case of Mudigere Zone, all the insured planters were eligible for Rs.8,000/- as the rainfall is >35mm for 10 consecutive days.

Days


Rainfall in mm


Arabica Rs. Per Acre


Robusta Rs. Per Acre



10




More than 35 mm




3,200/-




2,400/-



6. As per scheme provisions, respondent has settled all eligible claims, in Mudigere Zone according to the provision and conditions of the scheme.

7. The premium collected as per the complainant and the claim payable details are furnished for the ready reference.

Name of the Coffee Zone


Premium collected for Arabica Acreage


Claim payable (Rs.) in For Arabica



MUDIGERE




40 Acres






Rs.1,28,000/-



8. We announced the scheme payout in various media, Coffee Board Website and also we distributed pamphlets in each district and it is clear that the complainant knows about the scheme provisions and submitted proposal form.

9. The complainant has signed “the declaration” in the proposal form that they are agreeable to the conditions of the scheme.

10. Thus, they have not rendered any deficiency of service and there is no cause of action in this complaint to claim the compensation by the complainant. Hence, prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

11. The complainant has filed her affidavit evidence as PW.1 along with the documents and the same have been marked as Exs.P1 to P5.

12. The 1st opponent has also filed his affidavit evidence as RW.1 along with one document and the same has been marked as Ex.R1.

13. We heard the arguments advanced by both the parties’ counsels.

14. Now, the points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-



i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opponents?

ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the

reliefs as sought?

iii) What Order?

15. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-



i) Point No.1: In the Affirmative



ii) Point No.2: In the Affirmative



iii) Point No.3: See, as per order below



- ::: R E A S O N S ::: -

11. Point Nos.1 & 2: There is no dispute with respect to the policy obtained by the complainant for the period of 1st July, 2007 to 31st August, 2007 by paying Rs.7,240/- towards the premium. There is also no dispute that all other farmers at Mudigere Zone have received compensation from the opponent. The only dispute raised by the 1st opponent is that at the time of proposal, the complainant has not given any optional letter with respect to the change of Zone from Kalasa to Mudigere. Therefore, they have repudiated the claim and the opponent has produced a proposal form, which is marked as Ex.R1. On perusal of the Ex.R1, we noted that in column No.10 the complainant has mentioned Mudigere as a Rain Guage Station for reference and paid Rs.7,240/- through cheque and the same was realised in favour of the opponent.

12. On perusal of the proposal form, there is no any condition required as to furnish the additional option letter apart from proposal form is to be furnished for change of coffee zone, whereas the opponent in his version has contended that the complainant has violated the conditions under the scheme to fulfill the particulars of the proposal form. But on perusal of Ex.R1, the opponent has accepted the proposal form and indemnified the loss by receiving Rs.7,240/- instead of Rs.5,440/- that means to say the opponent has accepted the premium payable to the Mudigere Zone i.e., Rs.7,240/- and on perusal of the scheme also there is no such a condition precedent required to give optional letter for change of zone. As such in the absence of any such condition, the opponent has repudiated to settle the claim of the complainant by adding additional conditions of its own.


If once they have accepted the proposal i.e., Ex.R1 and covered the risk, they have to settle the claim as per the proposal and if they failed to settle the claim as per the proposal that amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, the opponent has erred in not settling the claim of the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled to get the scheme benefit / assured sum of Rs.1,28,000/- and for the deficiency in service the opponent is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with Rs.1,000/- as court costs to the complainant. For the above said reasons, we answer the above point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.

16. Point No.3: In view of our findings on above points the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed. In the result we pass the following order.



- :::O R D E R::: -

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

2. The 1st opponent is hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainant by paying the sum assured of Rs.1,28,000/-

3. The 1st opponent is hereby further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the deficiency of service in not rendering the prompt service to the complainant along with court costs of Rs.1,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant.

4. The 1st opponent shall comply the order within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of default till realisation.

5. The complaint against the 2nd opponent is hereby dismissed.

6. Send the copies of this order to the parties.

Thiru C. Ganesan,

Advocate & Notary,

1-A, 10 Trichy Main Road,

Namakkal. .. Complainant



/versus/

Branch Manager,

Vijaya Bank,

Trichy Road,

Namakkal. … Opposite party







ORDER





1. The crux of the complaint is : -

The complainant is a practicing advocate for the past 23 years. He is having a Savings Bank A/c. No.2827 with the Opposite Party bank. The complainant pass book was maintained properly all these years. The complainant as on 19.12.2005 was having a cash balance Rs.2,50,769/-. The complainant on 15.04.2006 visited the bank for depositing Rs.50,000/-. The balance after the deposit has to be Rs.3,00,769/-. But in contrast the pass book entries was made as S.No.12 24.02.2006 to TRAN/MTR Rs.1,72,387/- and the balance was shown as Rs.52,593/- and after the deposit of Rs.50,000/- which was entered in S.No.13 on 15.04.2006 was shown as Rs.1,02,593/-. The Complainant objected to these entries which were made on 15.04.2006 as it to appear all these entries were carried out regularly with the pass book on all these days of transactions. Only after protacted arguments the officer made written entries in the Complainant’s pass book and signed the above entries from 19.12.2005 to 15.04.2006 were made on 15.04.2006 alone.


The Complainant questioned the following withdrawals made in the pass book:- (1) Sl.No.2 dated 02.02.2006 to cash 664562 withdrawal Rs.20,000/- (2) Sl.No.4 dated 24.02.2006 to cash 664936 withdrawal Rs.8,000/- (3) Sl.No.24.02.2006 to TRAN 664937/MTR Rs.1,72,387/- these withdrawals are made through loose withdrawal slips without his presence and without his passbook. The complainant demanded the opposite party to see the alleged withdrawal slips when it was verfied it was patently clearly even to layman that the above signature verfied with my original and specimen signature is forged and requested the opposite party to correct and bring the balance to Rs.3,00,769-80.


The officials of the opposite party conceded that alleged signatures are forged and explained to him that the Manager is on leave and that the bank will indemnify the same. On 17.04.2006 the opposite party gave a written reply stating that all the alleged transactions referred in the letter were transacted during the normal course of business and all are within the opposite party’s knowledge. The complainant submits that all the alleged transactions were done violating the banking laws, rules and regulations, customs and convention, usage violating the contractual fiduciary obligation to the customer who is a consumer.


This fraudulent transactions could have been only committed wither in gross negligence or by collusion and inside conspiracy of the officers of the bank. The complainant has alleged that withdrawal No.660863 dated 01.09.2005 for Rs.4,000/- has also been withdrawn by forged signatures. The complainant had alleged deficiency in service coupled with gross negligence on the part of the opposite party and has lodged this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,387/- plus Rs.4,000/- with interest, compensation and cost.



2. The crux of the Opposite Party’s contention in the written version is:-

The opposite party contends that the whole transaction is well within the knowledge of the complainant and the mail transfer has been made to one Mr.D. Selvaraj of Karur who is the Junior Advocate of the complainant. The signatures of the complainant at every stage has varied and even the signature in the complainant’s letter dated: 15.04.2006 sent by the complainant does not tally with the specimen signature given to the bank. It is true that the complainant is well known to the bank officials because of this familiarity the bank official in the concerned department used to give him a quick service every time.


The complainant used to sign with certain degree of variation since he is well known to the passing officer the bank used to pass the cheque without the personal presence of the complainant. The money transfer too was made by him. It is pertinent to note that the person instead of taking on mail transfer by spending Rs.387/-. This clearly indicates that the complainant only has made the transactions and is now denying the same. He has misused his familiarity and the long standing relationship with the bank. There is no deficiency in service or negligence hence the complaint has to be dismissed.

3. The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 4 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit with one document and the same has been marked as Ex.B1. The Commission Report along with the Report of the Department of Forensic Sciences, Government of Tamil Nadu has been marked as Ex.C-1.

4. The point for consideration is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled for?

5. POINT:- The complainant is having a Savings Bank A/c No.2827 with the opposite party bank. The complainant pass book was maintained properly all these years. The complainant as on 19.12.2005 was having a cash balance Rs.2,50,769/-. The complainant on 15.04.2006 visited the bank for depositing Rs.50,000/-. The balance after the deposit has to be Rs.3,00,769/-. But in contrast the pass book entries was made asS.No.12 24.02.2006 to TRAN/MTR Rs.1,72,387/- and the balance was shown as Rs.52,593/- and after the deposit of Rs.50,000/- which was entered in S.No.13 on 15.04.2006 was shown as Rs.1,02,593/-.


All these withdrawals are made through loose withdrawal slips without his presence and without his passbook. The complainant demanded the opposite party to see the alleged withdrawal slips when it was verified it was patently clearly even to layman that the above signature verified with my original and specimen signature is forged and requested the opposite party to correct and bring the balance to Rs.3,00,769-80.


The Opposite Party in the written version has denied the allegation & has stated that the whole transaction is well within the knowledge of the complainant and the mail transfer has been made to one Mr.D. Selvaraj of Karur who is the junior advocate of the complainant. The signature of the complainant at every stage has varied and even the signatures in the complainant letter dated 15.04.2006 sent by the complainant does not tally with the specimen signature given to the bank. The following disputed withdrawal slips









Sl.No.2 dated 02.02.2006 tocash 664562 withdrawal Rs. 20,000/-

Sl.No. 4 dated 24.02.2006 to cash 664936 withdrawal Rs. 8,000/-

Sl.No. 24.02.2006 to TRAN 664937/MTR Rs. 1,72,387/-

01.09.2005 to cash 660863 withdrawal Rs. 4,000/-

along with specimen signatures of the complainant was sent to Documents Division, Department of Forensic Sciences, Government of Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai in sealed cover through Advocate/Commissioner. This Forum has received the report T.No.5934/2007 Doc.No.509/2007 dated 25.06.2008. The said report has been marked as C-1. It can be evidenced from the report of Documents Division, Department of Forensic Sciences, Government of Tamil Nadu that signatures in the above disputed withdrawals are not of the Complainant. Thus one can easily come to conclusion that the signatures are forged one. The opposite party in the written version and the proof affidavit has admitted that the signatures of the complainant has varied at every stage and since the complainant is well known to the passing officer the bank has passed the withdrawal.


The opposite party ought not to have passed the withdrawal slips without pass book on the basis of the familiarity of the account holder. It is the bound and duty of the opposite party to verify the signatures and if it is found different, they ought to have clarified and obtained fresh specimen signature from the complainant. Bank rules require that in case of any suspicion the signatures has to be compared and checked with specimen signature. In the withdrawal slip itself it has been very clearly printed that pass book must accompany the withdrawal slip. It is pertinent to point out that all these withdrawals were allowed without pass book accompanying them.


The complainant has stated that he objected to all the disputed entries were made on 15.04.2006 as it to appear all these entries were carried out regularly with the pass book on all these days of transactions. Only after protracted arguments the officer made written entries in the complainant’s pass book and signed the above entries from 19.12.2005 to 15.04.2006 were made on 15.04.2006 alone. The said extract (Ex.A1) has been placed before us and the endorsement made to this effect by the opposite party is established by the complainant. This clearly reveals that the payment through withdrawal slips were passed by the opposite party without the pass book.


The opposite party has not given any explanation as to why and how the opposite party passed the withdrawal slips without insisting for the pass book? If the opposite party has simply stated that the signatures are not forged as per their verifications it matched with the specimen signature of the complainant so the withdrawals were permitted by them, then it can be construed as criminal offence of forgery and for which the relief is not before this Forum and we could have directed the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of Law. But, in the present complaint the opposite party has clearly and specifically admitted in the written version that signature of the complainant usually varies and that due to familiarity of the complainant they have passed the withdrawals.

6. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in the case of

State Bank of India & another

Vs.

Gowri Ramakrishnan & others

reported in 2006 T.N.C.R. 107-112 (SCDRC) the State Commission has upheld the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum in a complaint filed before the District Forum seeking relief against the bank for alleged wrongful encashment of forged cheque alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank and the said complaint was allowed.

7. In such scenario the complainant has filed the Complainant alleging deficiency in service coupled with negligence on the part of the opposite party bank for not exercising care and caution in verifying the signatures while passing the signatures. This clearly establishes that due to deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of the opposite party has permitted withdrawals. In view of the above discussion we hold the act of the opposite party as gross deficiency in service coupled with negligence. The act of the opposite party would have definitely caused acute mental agony to the complainant and hence the complainant is entitled for compensation.

7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,04,387-00 with interest at the rate applicable for Savings Bank Account from the date of this complaint till the date of payment. Further the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and Rs.1,500/- as cost of this complaint. Time for payment one month from the date of this order.

Thiru C. Ganesan,

Advocate & Notary,

1-A, 10 Trichy Main Road,

Namakkal. .. Complainant



/versus/

Branch Manager,

Vijaya Bank,

Trichy Road,

Namakkal. … Opposite party






ORDER






1. The crux of the complaint is : -

The complainant is a practicing advocate for the past 23 years. He is having a Savings Bank A/c. No.2827 with the Opposite Party bank. The complainant pass book was maintained properly all these years. The complainant as on 19.12.2005 was having a cash balance Rs.2,50,769/-. The complainant on 15.04.2006 visited the bank for depositing Rs.50,000/-. The balance after the deposit has to be Rs.3,00,769/-. But in contrast the pass book entries was made as S.No.12 24.02.2006 to TRAN/MTR Rs.1,72,387/- and the balance was shown as Rs.52,593/- and after the deposit of Rs.50,000/- which was entered in S.No.13 on 15.04.2006 was shown as Rs.1,02,593/-. The Complainant objected to these entries which were made on 15.04.2006 as it to appear all these entries were carried out regularly with the pass book on all these days of transactions. Only after protacted arguments the officer made written entries in the Complainant’s pass book and signed the above entries from 19.12.2005 to 15.04.2006 were made on 15.04.2006 alone.


The Complainant questioned the following withdrawals made in the pass book:- (1) Sl.No.2 dated 02.02.2006 to cash 664562 withdrawal Rs.20,000/- (2) Sl.No.4 dated 24.02.2006 to cash 664936 withdrawal Rs.8,000/- (3) Sl.No.24.02.2006 to TRAN 664937/MTR Rs.1,72,387/- these withdrawals are made through loose withdrawal slips without his presence and without his passbook. The complainant demanded the opposite party to see the alleged withdrawal slips when it was verfied it was patently clearly even to layman that the above signature verfied with my original and specimen signature is forged and requested the opposite party to correct and bring the balance to Rs.3,00,769-80.


The officials of the opposite party conceded that alleged signatures are forged and explained to him that the Manager is on leave and that the bank will indemnify the same. On 17.04.2006 the opposite party gave a written reply stating that all the alleged transactions referred in the letter were transacted during the normal course of business and all are within the opposite party’s knowledge. The complainant submits that all the alleged transactions were done violating the banking laws, rules and regulations, customs and convention, usage violating the contractual fiduciary obligation to the customer who is a consumer.


This fraudulent transactions could have been only committed wither in gross negligence or by collusion and inside conspiracy of the officers of the bank. The complainant has alleged that withdrawal No.660863 dated 01.09.2005 for Rs.4,000/- has also been withdrawn by forged signatures. The complainant had alleged deficiency in service coupled with gross negligence on the part of the opposite party and has lodged this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,387/- plus Rs.4,000/- with interest, compensation and cost.



2. The crux of the Opposite Party’s contention in the written version is:-

The opposite party contends that the whole transaction is well within the knowledge of the complainant and the mail transfer has been made to one Mr.D. Selvaraj of Karur who is the Junior Advocate of the complainant. The signatures of the complainant at every stage has varied and even the signature in the complainant’s letter dated: 15.04.2006 sent by the complainant does not tally with the specimen signature given to the bank. It is true that the complainant is well known to the bank officials because of this familiarity the bank official in the concerned department used to give him a quick service every time.


The complainant used to sign with certain degree of variation since he is well known to the passing officer the bank used to pass the cheque without the personal presence of the complainant. The money transfer too was made by him. It is pertinent to note that the person instead of taking on mail transfer by spending Rs.387/-. This clearly indicates that the complainant only has made the transactions and is now denying the same. He has misused his familiarity and the long standing relationship with the bank. There is no deficiency in service or negligence hence the complaint has to be dismissed.

3. The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 4 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit with one document and the same has been marked as Ex.B1. The Commission Report along with the Report of the Department of Forensic Sciences, Government of Tamil Nadu has been marked as Ex.C-1.

4. The point for consideration is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled for?

5. POINT:- The complainant is having a Savings Bank A/c No.2827 with the opposite party bank. The complainant pass book was maintained properly all these years. The complainant as on 19.12.2005 was having a cash balance Rs.2,50,769/-. The complainant on 15.04.2006 visited the bank for depositing Rs.50,000/-. The balance after the deposit has to be Rs.3,00,769/-. But in contrast the pass book entries was made asS.No.12 24.02.2006 to TRAN/MTR Rs.1,72,387/- and the balance was shown as Rs.52,593/- and after the deposit of Rs.50,000/- which was entered in S.No.13 on 15.04.2006 was shown as Rs.1,02,593/-. All these withdrawals are made through loose withdrawal slips without his presence and without his passbook.


The complainant demanded the opposite party to see the alleged withdrawal slips when it was verified it was patently clearly even to layman that the above signature verified with my original and specimen signature is forged and requested the opposite party to correct and bring the balance to Rs.3,00,769-80. The Opposite Party in the written version has denied the allegation & has stated that the whole transaction is well within the knowledge of the complainant and the mail transfer has been made to one Mr.D. Selvaraj of Karur who is the junior advocate of the complainant. The signature of the complainant at every stage has varied and even the signatures in the complainant letter dated 15.04.2006 sent by the complainant does not tally with the specimen signature given to the bank. The following disputed withdrawal slips









Sl.No.2 dated 02.02.2006 tocash 664562 withdrawal Rs. 20,000/-

Sl.No. 4 dated 24.02.2006 to cash 664936 withdrawal Rs. 8,000/-

Sl.No. 24.02.2006 to TRAN 664937/MTR Rs. 1,72,387/-

01.09.2005 to cash 660863 withdrawal Rs. 4,000/-

along with specimen signatures of the complainant was sent to Documents Division, Department of Forensic Sciences, Government of Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai in sealed cover through Advocate/Commissioner. This Forum has received the report T.No.5934/2007 Doc.No.509/2007 dated 25.06.2008. The said report has been marked as C-1. It can be evidenced from the report of Documents Division, Department of Forensic Sciences, Government of Tamil Nadu that signatures in the above disputed withdrawals are not of the Complainant. Thus one can easily come to conclusion that the signatures are forged one. The opposite party in the written version and the proof affidavit has admitted that the signatures of the complainant has varied at every stage and since the complainant is well known to the passing officer the bank has passed the withdrawal.


The opposite party ought not to have passed the withdrawal slips without pass book on the basis of the familiarity of the account holder. It is the bound and duty of the opposite party to verify the signatures and if it is found different, they ought to have clarified and obtained fresh specimen signature from the complainant. Bank rules require that in case of any suspicion the signatures has to be compared and checked with specimen signature. In the withdrawal slip itself it has been very clearly printed that pass book must accompany the withdrawal slip. It is pertinent to point out that all these withdrawals were allowed without pass book accompanying them.


The complainant has stated that he objected to all the disputed entries were made on 15.04.2006 as it to appear all these entries were carried out regularly with the pass book on all these days of transactions. Only after protracted arguments the officer made written entries in the complainant’s pass book and signed the above entries from 19.12.2005 to 15.04.2006 were made on 15.04.2006 alone. The said extract (Ex.A1) has been placed before us and the endorsement made to this effect by the opposite party is established by the complainant. This clearly reveals that the payment through withdrawal slips were passed by the opposite party without the pass book.


The opposite party has not given any explanation as to why and how the opposite party passed the withdrawal slips without insisting for the pass book? If the opposite party has simply stated that the signatures are not forged as per their verifications it matched with the specimen signature of the complainant so the withdrawals were permitted by them, then it can be construed as criminal offence of forgery and for which the relief is not before this Forum and we could have directed the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of Law. But, in the present complaint the opposite party has clearly and specifically admitted in the written version that signature of the complainant usually varies and that due to familiarity of the complainant they have passed the withdrawals.

6. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in the case of

State Bank of India & another

Vs.

Gowri Ramakrishnan & others

reported in 2006 T.N.C.R. 107-112 (SCDRC) the State Commission has upheld the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum in a complaint filed before the District Forum seeking relief against the bank for alleged wrongful encashment of forged cheque alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank and the said complaint was allowed.

7. In such scenario the complainant has filed the Complainant alleging deficiency in service coupled with negligence on the part of the opposite party bank for not exercising care and caution in verifying the signatures while passing the signatures. This clearly establishes that due to deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of the opposite party has permitted withdrawals. In view of the above discussion we hold the act of the opposite party as gross deficiency in service coupled with negligence. The act of the opposite party would have definitely caused acute mental agony to the complainant and hence the complainant is entitled for compensation.

7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,04,387-00 with interest at the rate applicable for Savings Bank Account from the date of this complaint till the date of payment. Further the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and Rs.1,500/- as cost of this complaint. Time for payment one month from the date of this order.

COMPLAINT NO. 1433 OF 2009

K.H.Abdul Khader,

S/o Haji. K.Hasnabba,

Aged about 60 yrs,

R/o No.83, 3rd Cross,

Telecom Layout,

Bangalore – 560 023.

…. Complainant.

V/s



The Vijay Bank,

K.B.Sangha Building,

3rd Main, 3rd Cross,

Vijayanagar, Karnataka,

Bangalore – 560 040.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-





This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on the following grounds:-

2. As a member of the Country Club, the complainant had issued crossed cheque bearing No.032040 of VIJAYA BANK, Vijayanagar Branch for Rs.35,000/- dated 30/02/2009 in favour of AMRUTHA ESTATES – a wing of Country Club for the purpose of registering a plot allotted to him. AMRUTHA ESTATES Authorities denied for having received the payment. Later, he discovered from the Bank Authorities that the cheque in question had been drawn in the name of one Mr.BINU P.V. on 24/02/2009. From the copy of the cheque in question it is evident that the cheque has been forged by one Mr.BINU P.V. who was an Ex-Employee of the Country Club.


The name has been manipulated and altered very evidently. No prudent Bank would have approved such a Cheque. The signature of the complainant does not match in the column where the name is altered and manipulated and the handwriting is completely different. The cheque amount has been transferred to the account of Mr.BINU and as result, the complainant lost his money. On the date on which the cheque was honored, the complainant had Rs.56,180/- in his account. When he asked the Bank Authorities for an explanation, a casual and careless reply was given that they thought that the forged signature was the short signature of him and that they are not responsible for the amount lost.


Subsequently Mr.BINU has been arrested by INDIRANAGAR POLICE and the case in Crime No.100/2009 is pending in the court of 10th Additional CMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. Mr.BINU has confessed to police that he has forged the cheque and the same is entered in the PANCHANAMA. He sent notice dated:19/05/2009 demanding compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Even after service of notice, the Opposite Party failed to give reply. Hence, the complaint.

3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The Opposite Party is not aware about the membership of complainant with the Country Club and about the issuance of the cheque in question in the name of AMRUTHA ESTATES and about the denial of the payment by AMRUTHA ESTATES. The cheque in question was issued in the name of Mr.BINU P.V. and not in the name of AMRUTHA ESTATES as alleged by the complainant. The alleged forgery is not within the knowledge of the Opposite Party. The cheque in question was honored; the Bank took all the required necessary care in dealing with the same when it was presented. The signature of the complainant is not forged or altered as alleged by the complainant. The Bank was not negligent while discharging its duty. The allegations in Para-11 of the complaint are denied as false.


The Bank is not aware of the filing of the Criminal Case and about the alleged confession made by Mr.BINU as stated in Para-12 and 13 of the complaint. It is also not aware of the notice dated 19/05/2009 issued by the complainant and as such the question of giving reply to the notice will not arise. The Bank had taken necessary care while dealing/honoring the cheque in question and there was no reason to doubt the cheque. The genuineness of the signature of the alleged fraud committed is the issue in question. Details of the fraud can be investigated through a detailed enquiry by Civil Court and it cannot be a subject matter of summary proceedings.


As such this Forum cannot decide the complaint within the stipulated time. Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is to be agitated before the proper court. The compensation sought by the complainant is without any valid grounds. The complaint is silent about the basis for claiming such a huge amount as compensation. The Country Club and AMRUTHA ESTATES are necessary parties as they are the beneficiaries of the cheque. The matter cannot be decided effectively in the absence of those parties. On these grounds, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments on both side.



5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?



6. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. The sole grievance of the complainant is that he had issued a crossed cheque dated 20/02/2009 for Rs.35,000/- in favour of AMRUTHA ESTATES – A wing of Country Club, but the said cheque has been forged by Mr.BINU P.V. - an Ex-Employee of the Country Club. The name has been manipulated or altered from AMRUTHA ESTATES to BINU P.V. The signature of the complainant has been forged and thereupon the cheque has been enchased by Mr.BINU P.V. The contention of the complainant that his signature has been forged in the cheque is denied by the Opposite Party. It is contended by the Opposite Party that they had taken all the necessary care required while passing the cheque.


They never noticed any forgery of the signature of the complainant and therefore they have not committed any deficiency in service in passing the cheque in question. The complainant also admits that Mr.BINU P.V. who got the cheque encashed, has been arrested by policy probably on a complaint given by him and the matter in Crime No.100/2009 is pending. The said Mr.BINU P.V. who is alleged to have received cheque amount is not impleaded as a party to the proceedings. It is also stated by the complainant that Mr.BINU has confessed before police for having forged the signature on the cheque. Whether the signature of the complainant has been forged or whether the signature is genuine, cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.


Such complicated questions require detail enquiry, which can be done only before a Competent Civil Court and not in a summary proceedings. The officials of the Bank cannot be expected to examine the signature on the cheque minutely to find out whether the signature is genuine or forged one. If the signature on the cheque has the similarity with the signature of the Account Holder, the Bank is bound to honor the cheque. The Customers cannot expect the Bank to be an handwriting experts so that they can examine the signatures on the cheque very minutely and find out whether the signature is genuine or forged. This view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh in the case of RANU ZADOO KHURANA VS. H.D.F.C. Bank, reported in 2009 CTJ 681, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission has held as under:-

The matter of forgery of signature on a cheque cannot be decided by the Consumer Forums. The officials of Bank are not handwriting and signature experts. They simply compare the signatures on the cheques and after satisfying themselves, make the payment.



In 1995 CTJ 151, in the case of UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK VS. MAHENDRA POPATLAL VORA, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the Customer could not expect the Bank to use the service of hand writing expert at the stage of passing of the cheque, as the same is not practically feasible, because the expert was bound to take considerable amount of time to complete the examination and give his opinion. Therefore, when the complainant alleges forgery of his signature in the cheque, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court and cannot be decided in summary manner under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. When the Bank finds similarity in both the signatures found on the cheque and pass the cheque, no deficiency of service could be alleged against the Bank. Therefore we hold that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and as such not entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-



1. The complaint is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11th Day of SEPTEMBER 2009.

K.H.Abdul Khader,

S/o Haji. K.Hasnabba,

Aged about 60 yrs,

R/o No.83, 3rd Cross,

Telecom Layout,

Bangalore – 560 023.

…. Complainant.

V/s



The Vijay Bank,

K.B.Sangha Building,

3rd Main, 3rd Cross,

Vijayanagar, Karnataka,

Bangalore – 560 040.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-




2. As a member of the Country Club, the complainant had issued crossed cheque bearing No.032040 of VIJAYA BANK, Vijayanagar Branch for Rs.35,000/- dated 30/02/2009 in favour of AMRUTHA ESTATES – a wing of Country Club for the purpose of registering a plot allotted to him. AMRUTHA ESTATES Authorities denied for having received the payment.


Later, he discovered from the Bank Authorities that the cheque in question had been drawn in the name of one Mr.BINU P.V. on 24/02/2009. From the copy of the cheque in question it is evident that the cheque has been forged by one Mr.BINU P.V. who was an Ex-Employee of the Country Club. The name has been manipulated and altered very evidently. No prudent Bank would have approved such a Cheque. The signature of the complainant does not match in the column where the name is altered and manipulated and the handwriting is completely different.


The cheque amount has been transferred to the account of Mr.BINU and as result, the complainant lost his money. On the date on which the cheque was honored, the complainant had Rs.56,180/- in his account. When he asked the Bank Authorities for an explanation, a casual and careless reply was given that they thought that the forged signature was the short signature of him and that they are not responsible for the amount lost.


Subsequently Mr.BINU has been arrested by INDIRANAGAR POLICE and the case in Crime No.100/2009 is pending in the court of 10th Additional CMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. Mr.BINU has confessed to police that he has forged the cheque and the same is entered in the PANCHANAMA. He sent notice dated:19/05/2009 demanding compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Even after service of notice, the Opposite Party failed to give reply. Hence, the complaint.

3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The Opposite Party is not aware about the membership of complainant with the Country Club and about the issuance of the cheque in question in the name of AMRUTHA ESTATES and about the denial of the payment by AMRUTHA ESTATES.


The cheque in question was issued in the name of Mr.BINU P.V. and not in the name of AMRUTHA ESTATES as alleged by the complainant. The alleged forgery is not within the knowledge of the Opposite Party. The cheque in question was honored; the Bank took all the required necessary care in dealing with the same when it was presented. The signature of the complainant is not forged or altered as alleged by the complainant. The Bank was not negligent while discharging its duty. The allegations in Para-11 of the complaint are denied as false. The Bank is not aware of the filing of the Criminal Case and about the alleged confession made by Mr.BINU as stated in Para-12 and 13 of the complaint.


It is also not aware of the notice dated 19/05/2009 issued by the complainant and as such the question of giving reply to the notice will not arise. The Bank had taken necessary care while dealing/honoring the cheque in question and there was no reason to doubt the cheque. The genuineness of the signature of the alleged fraud committed is the issue in question. Details of the fraud can be investigated through a detailed enquiry by Civil Court and it cannot be a subject matter of summary proceedings. As such this Forum cannot decide the complaint within the stipulated time.


Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is to be agitated before the proper court. The compensation sought by the complainant is without any valid grounds. The complaint is silent about the basis for claiming such a huge amount as compensation. The Country Club and AMRUTHA ESTATES are necessary parties as they are the beneficiaries of the cheque. The matter cannot be decided effectively in the absence of those parties. On these grounds, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments on both side.



5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?



6. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. The sole grievance of the complainant is that he had issued a crossed cheque dated 20/02/2009 for Rs.35,000/- in favour of AMRUTHA ESTATES – A wing of Country Club, but the said cheque has been forged by Mr.BINU P.V. - an Ex-Employee of the Country Club. The name has been manipulated or altered from AMRUTHA ESTATES to BINU P.V. The signature of the complainant has been forged and thereupon the cheque has been enchased by Mr.BINU P.V. The contention of the complainant that his signature has been forged in the cheque is denied by the Opposite Party. It is contended by the Opposite Party that they had taken all the necessary care required while passing the cheque.


They never noticed any forgery of the signature of the complainant and therefore they have not committed any deficiency in service in passing the cheque in question. The complainant also admits that Mr.BINU P.V. who got the cheque encashed, has been arrested by policy probably on a complaint given by him and the matter in Crime No.100/2009 is pending. The said Mr.BINU P.V. who is alleged to have received cheque amount is not impleaded as a party to the proceedings. It is also stated by the complainant that Mr.BINU has confessed before police for having forged the signature on the cheque.


Whether the signature of the complainant has been forged or whether the signature is genuine, cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Such complicated questions require detail enquiry, which can be done only before a Competent Civil Court and not in a summary proceedings. The officials of the Bank cannot be expected to examine the signature on the cheque minutely to find out whether the signature is genuine or forged one.


If the signature on the cheque has the similarity with the signature of the Account Holder, the Bank is bound to honor the cheque. The Customers cannot expect the Bank to be an handwriting experts so that they can examine the signatures on the cheque very minutely and find out whether the signature is genuine or forged. This view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh in the case of RANU ZADOO KHURANA VS. H.D.F.C. Bank, reported in 2009 CTJ 681, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission has held as under:-

The matter of forgery of signature on a cheque cannot be decided by the Consumer Forums. The officials of Bank are not handwriting and signature experts. They simply compare the signatures on the cheques and after satisfying themselves, make the payment.



In 1995 CTJ 151, in the case of UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK VS. MAHENDRA POPATLAL VORA, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the Customer could not expect the Bank to use the service of hand writing expert at the stage of passing of the cheque, as the same is not practically feasible, because the expert was bound to take considerable amount of time to complete the examination and give his opinion. Therefore, when the complainant alleges forgery of his signature in the cheque, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court and cannot be decided in summary manner under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

Is any one customer go for vijay bank home loan.

K.H.Abdul Khader,

S/o Haji. K.Hasnabba,

Aged about 60 yrs,

R/o No.83, 3rd Cross,

Telecom Layout,

Bangalore – 560 023.

…. Complainant.

V/s



The Vijay Bank,

K.B.Sangha Building,

3rd Main, 3rd Cross,

Vijayanagar, Karnataka,

Bangalore – 560 040.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-





This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on the following grounds:-

2. As a member of the Country Club, the complainant had issued crossed cheque bearing No.032040 of VIJAYA BANK, Vijayanagar Branch for Rs.35,000/- dated 30/02/2009 in favour of AMRUTHA ESTATES – a wing of Country Club for the purpose of registering a plot allotted to him. AMRUTHA ESTATES Authorities denied for having received the payment. Later, he discovered from the Bank Authorities that the cheque in question had been drawn in the name of one Mr.BINU P.V. on 24/02/2009. From the copy of the cheque in question it is evident that the cheque has been forged by one Mr.BINU P.V. who was an Ex-Employee of the Country Club. The name has been manipulated and altered very evidently. No prudent Bank would have approved such a Cheque.


The signature of the complainant does not match in the column where the name is altered and manipulated and the handwriting is completely different. The cheque amount has been transferred to the account of Mr.BINU and as result, the complainant lost his money. On the date on which the cheque was honored, the complainant had Rs.56,180/- in his account. When he asked the Bank Authorities for an explanation, a casual and careless reply was given that they thought that the forged signature was the short signature of him and that they are not responsible for the amount lost.


Subsequently Mr.BINU has been arrested by INDIRANAGAR POLICE and the case in Crime No.100/2009 is pending in the court of 10th Additional CMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. Mr.BINU has confessed to police that he has forged the cheque and the same is entered in the PANCHANAMA. He sent notice dated:19/05/2009 demanding compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Even after service of notice, the Opposite Party failed to give reply. Hence, the complaint.

3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The Opposite Party is not aware about the membership of complainant with the Country Club and about the issuance of the cheque in question in the name of AMRUTHA ESTATES and about the denial of the payment by AMRUTHA ESTATES.


The cheque in question was issued in the name of Mr.BINU P.V. and not in the name of AMRUTHA ESTATES as alleged by the complainant. The alleged forgery is not within the knowledge of the Opposite Party. The cheque in question was honored; the Bank took all the required necessary care in dealing with the same when it was presented. The signature of the complainant is not forged or altered as alleged by the complainant. The Bank was not negligent while discharging its duty. The allegations in Para-11 of the complaint are denied as false. The Bank is not aware of the filing of the Criminal Case and about the alleged confession made by Mr.BINU as stated in Para-12 and 13 of the complaint.


It is also not aware of the notice dated 19/05/2009 issued by the complainant and as such the question of giving reply to the notice will not arise. The Bank had taken necessary care while dealing/honoring the cheque in question and there was no reason to doubt the cheque. The genuineness of the signature of the alleged fraud committed is the issue in question. Details of the fraud can be investigated through a detailed enquiry by Civil Court and it cannot be a subject matter of summary proceedings.


As such this Forum cannot decide the complaint within the stipulated time. Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is to be agitated before the proper court. The compensation sought by the complainant is without any valid grounds. The complaint is silent about the basis for claiming such a huge amount as compensation. The Country Club and AMRUTHA ESTATES are necessary parties as they are the beneficiaries of the cheque. The matter cannot be decided effectively in the absence of those parties. On these grounds, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments on both side.



5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?



6. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. The sole grievance of the complainant is that he had issued a crossed cheque dated 20/02/2009 for Rs.35,000/- in favour of AMRUTHA ESTATES – A wing of Country Club, but the said cheque has been forged by Mr.BINU P.V. - an Ex-Employee of the Country Club. The name has been manipulated or altered from AMRUTHA ESTATES to BINU P.V. The signature of the complainant has been forged and thereupon the cheque has been enchased by Mr.BINU P.V.


The contention of the complainant that his signature has been forged in the cheque is denied by the Opposite Party. It is contended by the Opposite Party that they had taken all the necessary care required while passing the cheque. They never noticed any forgery of the signature of the complainant and therefore they have not committed any deficiency in service in passing the cheque in question. The complainant also admits that Mr.BINU P.V. who got the cheque encashed, has been arrested by policy probably on a complaint given by him and the matter in Crime No.100/2009 is pending.


The said Mr.BINU P.V. who is alleged to have received cheque amount is not impleaded as a party to the proceedings. It is also stated by the complainant that Mr.BINU has confessed before police for having forged the signature on the cheque. Whether the signature of the complainant has been forged or whether the signature is genuine, cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Such complicated questions require detail enquiry, which can be done only before a Competent Civil Court and not in a summary proceedings. The officials of the Bank cannot be expected to examine the signature on the cheque minutely to find out whether the signature is genuine or forged one.


If the signature on the cheque has the similarity with the signature of the Account Holder, the Bank is bound to honor the cheque. The Customers cannot expect the Bank to be an handwriting experts so that they can examine the signatures on the cheque very minutely and find out whether the signature is genuine or forged. This view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh in the case of RANU ZADOO KHURANA VS. H.D.F.C. Bank, reported in 2009 CTJ 681, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission has held as under:-

The matter of forgery of signature on a cheque cannot be decided by the Consumer Forums. The officials of Bank are not handwriting and signature experts. They simply compare the signatures on the cheques and after satisfying themselves, make the payment.



In 1995 CTJ 151, in the case of UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK VS. MAHENDRA POPATLAL VORA, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the Customer could not expect the Bank to use the service of hand writing expert at the stage of passing of the cheque, as the same is not practically feasible, because the expert was bound to take considerable amount of time to complete the examination and give his opinion.


Therefore, when the complainant alleges forgery of his signature in the cheque, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court and cannot be decided in summary manner under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. When the Bank finds similarity in both the signatures found on the cheque and pass the cheque, no deficiency of service could be alleged against the Bank.

Dear Sir / Madam,

This is for your kind information that I could not withdrawal the amount from Bank of India 's ATM at Chandani Chauk branch for Rs 8000/- on 16th April 2011. Transaction was declined due to technical problem. I have already requested many times to you. But no any action has been taken from your side.
My saving account no in Vijya Bank is :- 601101011000820.

You are requested kindly provide Rs 8000/- on my above account no in Vijaya Bank as earliest.


Best Regards,
Ashok Kumar Jha
+91 9311279739