Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant has got account with the OPs - Bank vide SB Account No. 110410. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant has issued a cheque in favour of Star Health & Allied Insurance Co.Ltd., Bhubaneswar towards insurance premium for renewal of the policy. It was deposited with the HDFC Bank who subsequently presented the same with the OPs for clearance. On 14.5.2013 appellant No.2 returned the cheque stating that “drawer’s signature differs.” Thereafter, the said cheque was  sent again on 18.5.2013 but it was also returned on the same ground on 21.5.2013.Complainant was astonished about the behavior of OP No.1 – Bank and due to such act of OP No.1, he  could not get insurance  policy for the purpose, he has proposed same. So finding fault with the appellants, he filed the complaint.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that the complainant has got cheque facility with OP No.1- Bank. It is also admitted by them that they have received the cheque but later on they found that the signature of the complainant does not tally. Then again the complainant submitted the cheque, it was also returned. Since the signature does not tally the OPs - Bank is not obliged to encash the amount. They denied about any deficiency in service on their part.

5.      After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                    “xxx   xxx   xxx

Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OPs 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the entire awarded sum shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of this case i.e. 05.9.13 till payment.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that   the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version filed by the OPs with proper perspectives. According to him OPs – Banker is not liable for any lack of insurance compensation of the complainant. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.       It is admitted fact that complainant has submitted  one cheque and the same has been taken care by the OPs on 10.5.2013 but it was returned on 14.5.2013 with  report his signature does not  tally. During investigation the  complainant found that the same cheque has been submitted  by the OPs again which returned on 21.5.2013  stating that the signature does not tally. One copy of cheque no. 975474 is made available which shows  it was allegedly used twice. We have gone through the copy of the cheque which is placed before us. We find that this cheque has not gone twice. In the written version it is stated that they have sent the cheque dated 10.5.2013 for clearance but it returned with observation “drawers signature differs” but never said to have sent again. But the said report of the OPs states that it was sent again and same report is received. The above two  endorsements are generated by Andhra Bank. If at all the drawer’s signature is not tallying the Bank should have called upon the necessary person to obtain specimen signature again because signature varies as per age of the customer. So we are of the opinion that the allegation of the appellants that same cheque has been submitted by the complainant is completely a false one. Rather they have issued twice said cheque which mentioned there. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs proved by complainant.

9.      In view of above submission, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. As such, the impugned order stands confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.