Haryana

Karnal

CC/584/2020

Kailash Nath Chhabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Post Master, Head Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Sharma

02 Mar 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 584 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.18.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:02.03.2022

 

Kailash Nath Chhabra son of late K.C. Chhabra, resident of House no.27, Chaman Garden Extn., Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

2.     Post Master, Post Office Railway Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

           

 Argued by: Shri S.K. Sharma, counsel for complainant.

 Shri Kamlesh Kumar, authorized representative,

 on behalf OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant alongwith his wife Smt. Suresh Kumari is having a Saving Account no.3543544031 with the OP no.2 and at present there is a balance of Rs.2,83,117/- as on 08.02.2020. Complainant issued a cheque no.759311 dated 26.02.2020 of Rs.51,000/- to Central Bank of India, Karnal, for clearing his credit mortgage loan but when the said cheque was sent to the OP for its clearance, the said cheque was returned unpaid with remarks ‘Drawers Signature required”. It is not understandable what is meaning of the said reasons, since prior to aforesaid cheque, many of cheques have already been encashed from this account. The complainant has suffered loss of credit and cibil score due to aforesaid dishonor of cheque which was returned unpaid due aforesaid reason. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 02.03.2020 to the OPs in this regard, but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action. On merits, it is admitted that complainant alongwith his wife Smt. Suresh Kumari is having a saving account no.3543544031 at Railway Road Sub Post Office, Karnal, and there was a balance of Rs.2,83,117/- as on 08.02.2020. It is further pleaded that Kailash Nath Chhabra got opened Post Office Saving Bank account at Railway Road Sub Post Office on 02.03.2017. After successful opening of POSB account the said customer’s specimen signature were sent to Central Processing Centre at Ambala for updating signatures in the system. Unfortunately, these could not be updated due to some technical reason. Previous to this incident, depositor always transacted through cheque at Railway Road Sub Post Office, Karnal, where his account stands i.e. at home service outlet, where manual record in respect of said account, was also available. Therefore, need for verifying signatures through system did not arise. Therefore, issue of non existence of their signatures in the system was not in the knowledge of Railway Road sub Post Office. The cheque, which is subject of this complainant was issued by the depositor (complainant) to Central Bank of India, Karnal, which was received at Head Post Office, Panipat, Nodal Office (intersol) through clearing house. As the specimen signature was not available/uploaded in the system, the said cheque could not be cleared and complainant (depositor) was intimated the facts accordingly. After receipt of grievance from complainant, matter for updating signature was taken up with CPC Ambala to arrange updation of signatures of complainant/depositor in the system. Now these are updated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, memo of Central Bank of India Ex.C2, copy of account detail of saving account Ex.C3, copy of cheque no.769311 dated 26.02.2020 Ex.C4, copy of bank account statement Ex.C5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 01.07.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OPs have tendered into evidence affidavit of Ranjeet Singh Senior Superintendent Ex.pW1/A, authority letter Ex.P1 and closed the evidence on 30.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and representative of OPs and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant alongwith his wife Smt. Suresh Kumari is having a Saving Account with the OP no.2 and on 08.02.2020, the available balance was  Rs.2,83,117/-. He further argued that on 26.02.2020 complainant issued a cheque of Rs.51,000/- to Central Bank of India, Karnal, for clearing his credit mortgaged loan but when the said cheque was sent to the OPs for its clearance, the said cheque was returned unpaid with remarks ‘Drawers Signature required”.  He further argued that since prior to aforesaid cheque, many of cheques have already been encashed from this account.  Due to this act the complainant has suffered loss of credit and cibil score. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the cheque in question issued by the depositor (complainant) to Central Bank of India, Karnal, which was received at Head Post Office, Panipat, Nodal Office (intersol) through clearing house. As the specimen signature was not available/uploaded in the system, the said cheque could not be cleared and complainant (depositor) was intimated the facts accordingly. After receipt of grievance from complainant, matter for updating signature was taken up with CPC Ambala to arrange updation of signatures of complainant/depositor in the system. Now these are updated. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, complainant alongwith his is having a saving account with the OP no.2. It is also admitted that there was a balance of Rs.2,83,117/- as on 08.02.2020.

10.           The complainant has taken a plea that due to dishonour of the cheque in question, he has suffered loss of credit and cibil score. On the other hand, as per the version of the OPs, the specimen signature was not available/uploaded in the system, so, the abovesaid cheque could not be cleared and intimation in this regard was sent to the complainant. After receipt of grievance from complainant, matter for updating signature was taken up with CPC Ambala to arrange updation of signatures of complainant/depositor in the system. Now the signatures are updated.

11.           Complainant got opened post office saving bank account at Railway Road Sub Post Office on 02.03.2017. The signatures of the complainant could not be updated due to some technical reason. The cheque in question was issued by the complainant to Central Bank of India, Karnal, which was received for clearing. The specimen signature was not updated in the system. After receipt of the complaint of the complainant the signature has been updated in the system. The cheque in question could not be cleared due to technical reason and cheque was returned unpaid with the remarks “Drawers Signature required”. The reason for non-clearance of the cheque in question is beyond the control of the OPs. Hence, it cannot be held that the act of the OPs is deficient and unfair trade practice.

12.           The complainant has also taken a plea that due to non-clearance of the cheque in question he has suffered loss of credit and cibil score. The onus to prove the same was lies upon the complainant but he miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, the plea taken by the complainant has no force. Thus, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

 13.          Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid observation, we found no merits in the complaint and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.03.2022                                                                      

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                (Vineet Kaushik)       

                     Member