DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: RBT/CC/2018/78
Date of Institution: 06.02.2018/29.11.2021
Date of Decision: 07.06.2022
Smt. Surinder Bhandari Aged about 78 years W/o Late Sh. Sham Lal Bhandari resident of House No. 90, Gali No. 3, Ward No. 12, Vijay Nagar Batala Road, Amritsar-143001 Punjab Mobile No. 92165-33912.
…Complainant
Versus
H.D.F.C Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative Adjoining Millan Palace, Batala Road, Amritsar-143001 Punjab.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
Present: Sh. Sanjeet Singh Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Cheema Adv counsel for the opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):
1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant Surinder Bhandari filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against HDFC Bank Ltd., (in short the opposite party).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is a Senior Citizen and permanent resident of the above said address. The complainant having a Saving Joint Account No. 50100088473041 with her son Mr. Navneet Bhandari. It is alleged that the complainant signatures were got forged and opposite party who actively connived, collaborated in the matter of withdrawal of total amount of Rs. 18,000/- from the above said saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant first cheque dated 23.5.2016 No. 000012 for Rs. 10,000/- with the forged signature the opposite party got encashed the same from the Bank vide its token No. 12 and again second cheque dated 25.5.2016 No. 000014 for Rs. 8,000/- got encashed from her saving bank account without complainant approval. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the opposite party number of times since 23.2.2017 to till the date of filing the present complaint from time to time and spent a huge amount on account of charges of travelling/conveyance charges but opposite party refused to pay the amount of Rs. 18,000/-. Lastly on 7.9.2017 the opposite party clearly refused to pay Rs. 18,000/- to the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 18.9.2017, but of no use. The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite party may be directed to refund Rs. 18,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from 23.5.2016 till the realization.
2) To pay Rs. 25,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3) To pay Rs. 50,000/- not as compensation but to realize the importance of the functioning in a professional manner.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of act and conduct of the complainant, concealment of material facts, maintainability, no cause of action etc. On merits, it is submitted admitted that the complainant having a joint saving account No. 50100088473041 with her son with the opposite party. It is denied that the signatures of complainant has been got forged and opposite party has actively connived/collaborated in the matter of withdrawal of total amount of Rs. 18,000/- from the above said saving bank account of the complainant. It is specifically denied that the complainant’s first cheque dated 23.4.2016 No. 000012 for Rs. 10,000/- with the forged signature the opposite party got encashed the same from the Bank vide its token No. 12 and again second cheque dated 25.5.2016 No. 000014 for Rs. 8,000/- got encashed from her saving bank account without complainant approval. Further, legal notice sent by the complainant is admitted. It is further submitted that signatures of the complainant have been duly tallied and verified from the specimen on record of the opposite party and found to be correct. All other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, copy of the cheques Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Gupta Manager Ex.O.P1/A, copy of the cheque Ex.O.P2 & Ex.O.P3, copy of the account statement Ex.O.P4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
7. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the complainant signatures were got forged and opposite party who actively connived/ collaborated in the matter of withdrawal of total amount of Rs. 18,000/- vide two different cheques of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 8,000/-. On the other hand the opposite party appeared and filed written version and denied that complainant’s first cheque dated 23.4.2016 got encashed from the opposite party Bank vide its token No. 12 without approval and consent. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party forged the signatures of complainant and got encashed the above said amount from the account of the complainant. The complainant has produced the copy of cheque Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party filed written arguments and also argued that during the entire proceedings the complainant has not attempted to prove or even to explain as to how her signatures on the two bearer cheques got forged or as to how these cheques left her custody and fell into the wrong hands. The one who alleges attracts onus of proof, in law, and he must discharge the same by virtue of some cogent and acceptable evidence. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party further argued that the above said two cheques have been passed/paid in due course in accordance with custom and practice as prevalent in banking operations also qua the provisions of applicable statute i.e. N I Act, 1881. As per the arguments and evidence produced by both the parties it is established that the complainant is failed to prove that the cheques presented in the bank are forged and also failed to prove that how these cheques left her custody and fell into the wrong hands. Therefore, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed with no costs. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
7th Day of June, 2022
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
