| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 287 of 03-10-2017. Decided on : 31-01-2022. Raj Paul Setia S/o Madan Lal Setia R/o House No. MIG # 77, Model Town Phase-I, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus H.D.F.C Bank Limited H.D.F.C Bank House Senapati Bipat Marg, Lower Parel ( West, Mumbai -400013 through its Company Head. Branch Manager, H.D.F.C Bank limited SCF No. 84, Model Town Phase-I, Bathinda, Pin;-151001. Ms Sonia Sharma C/o HDFC Bank Limited, SCF No. 84, Model Town Phase-1, Bathinda Pin;l 151001. (Deleted vide order dated 6-10-2017).
.......Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Bharti, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, for OPs No. 1&2 OP No. 3 deleted. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Raj Paul Setia (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against H.D F.C Bank Limited and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 21-04-2017 at complainant visited opposite party No. 2 for cash payment of a bearer cheque of the said bank bearing No. 000013 issued by the drawer having saving account No. 08001000017970 for Rs, 2,000/- only. The complainant presented the cheque at the counter to MS Sonia Sharma, the dealing hand for getting its payment after signing on the back side of the cheque. She inquired whether the complainant is account holder or third party customer, the complainant told her that he is a third party customer and then she advised to attach any ID proof for getting cash payment of bearer cheque. It is alleged that the complainant who is also a retired banker asked her that since it is bearer cheque and there is no such RBI guide lines to show ID proof for taking cash payment in case of a bearer cheque, but she insisted for submission of ID proof. The complainant submitted his driving licence issued by the competent authority of Punjab Govt, as ID proof, but on verification, she observed that driving licence has been expired on 17-04-2017. She asked for another ID roof and complainant replied that he has already applied for the renewal of his driving license and submitted original receipt issued by DTO, Bathinda. Mr. Sonia Sharma refused to accept that document and told the complainant to talk with Ms Payal Goyal ( Branch Authorized official), she also did not accept that document and replied that this is merely a piece of paper. Ms Payal Goyal told to Ms Sonia Sharma to dishonour/return the cheque on the ground that signatures are mismatch. It is also alleged that on 21-4-2017 complainant went to another branch of the HDFC Bank situated at Kikar Bazar, Bathinda, and presented the said cheque of Rs, 2,000/- at the counter for its payment and on demand the complainant presented the said driving license to the official as ID proof, which they accepted and made the payment to the complainant without any delay. It is further alleged that opposite parties No.2 & 3 harassed the complainant and disrespected the documents issued by the Punjab Govt, for providing the customer service for which they are legally bound. The complainant filed a complaint to the Head Office of the opposite party bank, but of no avail. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, botheration and deficiency in service and Rs, 11,000/- as litigation expenses. On the statement of learned counsel for the complainant, name of opposite party No. 3 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 6-10-2017. Upon notice, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as the opposite parties. That the opposite parties represent banking institution and is a custodian of public funds and are supposed to take every care and precaution and to satisfy themselves about the identity of the person who is not an account holder, rather a third person, and visits the bank for taking payment against cheque of another person and also to satisfy themselves about the signatures on the cheque. The act of the opposite parties is bonafide in discharge of official duties and does not amount to any sort of deficiency at all. The other legal objections raised by the opposite parties are that the complainant has already availed the remedy by filing a complaint with Banking Ombudsman and the complaint of the complainant has been dismissed vide letter dated 23-05-2017. Therefore, the present complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable ; that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties and that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint against the opposite parties. On merits, the opposite parties admitted that the complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 21-04-2017 for encashment of cheque in question, which was drawn on account No. 08001000017970 of HDFC Bank, District Fategarh Sahib, Bassi Pathana and it was not cheque drawn on the account of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was a third party to the cheque. The complainant presented the cheque at the counter in the branch of opposite party No. 2 and the employee present there asked for identity proof of complainant as the opposite parties are bound to satisfy themselves about the identity of the person presenting the cheque to avoid misuse specially when the person presenting the cheque is not the account holder against the said cheque. It is denied that the bank cannot ask for identity proof in case of bearer cheque rather in case the cheque is being presented for encasement by a person other than the account holder, the bank is bound to get the signatures of person presenting the cheque on the endorsement of cheque and also to satisfy themselves about the identity of the person, so that the bank may intimate the account holder about details of the person who gets the cheque encashed, if so required. It is pleaded that on demanding the ID proof by bank official, complainant provided expired DL, but as per rules, valid ID proof can be accepted. After further checking, teller found signature mismatch, hence, she refused for payment and returned cheque with memo with signature mismatch. It is further pleaded that complainant went to another branch and presented cheque with two signatures on back side of cheque. Teller in the other branch had checked the account holder signature with the system and passed the cheque. This is not due to reason that signature were matched, rather it was matter of judgment of signature which may vary from person to person. However, the return memo clearly shows that cheque was returned unpaid due to mismatch in signatures of drawer of the cheque and not on account of identity of the complainant. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 30-01-2018 (Ex.C-1), photocopy of letter dated 28-04-2017 (Ex.C-2), photocopy of letter dated 23-05-2017 (Ex.C-3), photocopy of postal receipts (Ex.C-4 & C-5), photocopy of cheque dated 20-04-2017 (Ex.C-6), photocopy of receipt (Ex.C-7), photo copy of DL (Ex.C-8), photocopy of memorandum ( Ex.C-9) and closed the evidence. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Nishan Gupta dated 15-05-2018 (Ex.OP-1/1), affidavit of Sonia Sharma dated 15-05-2018 ( Ex.OP-1/2) and closed evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the parties reiterated their version as pleaded in their respective pleadings. It is admitted fact of the parties that complainant presented self cheque (Ex. C-6) before opposite party No. 2 /Bank for encashment, but opposite party No. 2 had not encashed the cheque and returned it to complainant with memo (Ex. C-9) on the ground that “Drawer's signature required/differs from specimen.” The complainant alleged that official of the opposite parties demanded ID proof and he provided photocopy of DL and since DL was expired, complainant also provided photocopy of receipt of payment which he paid to concerned authority for renewal of DL. As per complainant, opposite parties did not accept that ID proof and returned him cheque in question with memo on the ground of Drawer's signatures required/differs from specimen, whereas the version of opposite parties is that since it was a third party cheque and the signatures of drawer did not match with the specimen due to which cheque was returned. A perusal of written reply of opposite parties reveals that in para No. 4 of reply, the opposite parties have admitted that complainant went to another branch and presented cheque with two signatures on back side of cheque and teller in the other branch had checked the account holder signatures with the system and passed the cheque. The opposite parties have further stated that this is not due to reason that signatures were matched, rather it was matter of judgement of signatures which may vary from person to person. The opposite parties have admitted in their reply that the same cheque was encashed by their other branch by checking the signatures of account holder with their system, but surprisingly opposite parties, nowhere, pleaded and proved that they themselves adopted the required procedure. The opposite parties specifically pleaded that cheque was returned unpaid due to mismatch in signature of drawer of the cheque but perusal of the memorandum Ex. C-9 does not reveal that reason for return of cheque as unpaid was - whether Drawer's signature required or differ from specimen ? The opposite parties are pleading that on demand, complainant provided expired driving licence and as per rules only valid ID poof was to be accepted meaning thereby that opposite parties raised objection regarding expired DL. Thus, the question of further acceptance and putting of cheque for clearance does not arise at all. It appears that opposite parties dishonoured the cheque without any application of mind. Therefore, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that if there was any judgemental error on the part of official of Bank, customer should not be made to suffer. The payment/encashment of cheque in another branch of the opposite parties proves that cheque presented by complainant was original and genuine one, given by drawer and there was no difference in signatures. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not making payment of cheque in question to complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to some amount of compensation on account of harassment which he suffered at the hands of the opposite parties without any fault on his part. Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties No. 1& 2 are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation to complainant. The compliance of this order be made by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant will also be entitled to interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 31-1-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
