Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/1580

Mr. Vishhwanath Son of Mr. Ishwarappa Balekundri Aged about 54 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Pragati Law chambers

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 29.08.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 25.09.2017

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1580/2013

DATED THIS THE 25^TH SEPTEMBER OF 2017

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Mr.Vishhwanath

s/o Mr.Ishwarappa Balekundri aged about 54 years,

R/at no.140/A-1,

4^th cross, 1^st ‘N’ block, Rajajinagar,

Bengaluru-10

 

By Advocates

M/s. Pragathi Law Chambers     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

 

M/s.Corporation Bank,

II stage, Rajajinagar,

Bengaluru-10.

Rep. by its Branch Manager

 

By Adv.Sri.V.B.Ravishankar

 

 

ORDER

 

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

 

            The Complainant has prayed for the direction against the Opposite party/Corporation Bank to pay total compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with litigation charges, alleging the deficiency in its service in not honouring his cheque issued in favour of the builder.       

 

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he was the holder of the savings bank account for more than 15 years. He changed his name Vishwanath I.B to Vishhwanath on 06.07.10 and changed the style of his signature also and got it published in local Kannada & also in English newspapers and intimated to the Opposite party bank, through letter dtd.28.06.10. He issued the cheque dtd.13.02.13 for Rs.1 lakh in favour of M/s.Vaibhav Developers and it was returned on 16.02.13 with shara “account blocked.” He did the compliance towards KYC norms and got the certificate of Opposite party bank dtd.26.02.13 that the returned cheque was for the reason of KYC non-compliance and it may be re-presented. Second time also the said cheque was returned with shara “signature differs”. The Opposite party bank had cleared several cheques which bore his modified signatures. Hence dishonour of the said cheque for the second time when presented by M/s.Vaibhav Developers, amounts to deficiency in its service. The legal notice dtd.03.05.13 was not complied by the Opposite party. Hence this complaint is filed.  

 

          3. The Opposite party/Corporation Bank has resisted the complaint contending that the complainant has suppressed the true facts. The process relating to changing of his name is not known to it. The name changing process is not in accordance with law. The writing of letter dtd.28.06.10, the clearance of his other cheques as alleged are all false.  The cheque dtd.13.02.13 was presented when account was blocked for non-compliance of KYC norms. When it was re-presented it was dishonoured because of difference in signature. The specimen signature book shows Vishwanath I.B. and the Complainant signed as Vishhwanath. Necessary changes were not made in the specimen signature book. The specimen signatures loaded in the core banking system helped to verify & compare the signatures and the difference traced was ended with the relevant shara.  The Complainant is in the habit of the changing his name and signature at times without complying the norms of Opposite party bank, which has led to dishonour of the said cheque and the said service cannot be considered as negligent act on its part. The legal notice dtd.03.05.13 was replied suitably. Non-compliance of the formalities about the modified signatures and dishonouring of the cheques for non-compliance only, cannot be targeted against the Opposite party. The Complainant failed to offer specimen signature when requested by the bank. Hence the clearing house managed by RBI based on the specimen signature maintained by the bank has responded rightly. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed for misdeeds of the Complainant only. There is no cause of action.

 

 

          4. The Complainant and the Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences. The Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 to A12 documents and three reported decisions. Opposite party has not placed any defence documents. Written arguments were filed by both the parties. Arguments were heard.   

 

 

                   

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

 

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service against the Opposite party/Bank in not tagging his modified signature in the cheque clearing system, despite his compliance of the requirements, in connection with his dishonoured re-presented cheque issued to the builder ?   
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

 

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Affirmative

2) As per final order – for the following      

 

REASONS

 

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant has the S.B account with the Opposite party bank from 21.07.1996 as per the copy of the pass book/Ex-A4.

 

8. It is also undisputed that he is a Chartered Engineer at “Kalakruthi Associates” and changed the spellings and consequential change of signature of his name, through the process, by getting it published in “Bengaluru Mirror,” English newspaper wide its copy/Ex-A2 dtd.10.07.10, after he got the affidavit as per Ex-A1 for change in the spellings in his name on 06.07.10 and intimated the said process to the Opposite party bank through letter/Ex-A3, informing the same, requesting to update his changed/modified signature in the records relating to three S.B accounts standing in his individual name and also standing in the joint names with his family members.

 

          9. It is also undisputed that the Complainant had issued the cheque dtd.13.02.13 for Rs.One lakh in favour of M/s.Vaibhav Developers as per its copy/Ex-A5. The said Vaibhav Developers accepted the same cheque as advance amount towards the flat T-2 wide receipt/Ex-A6 of the same day.

 

          10. The said cheque when presented, returned dishonoured and the Opposite party bank had notified the said cheque bearing last no.5074 was returned only for KYC non-compliance, with the clarification that there is no other reasons for the cheque returned and as the said KYC process has been completed, the said cheque may be re-presented for encashment.  

 

11. It is also undisputed that the said cheque was re-presented and then also it was dishonoured wide Syndicate bank endorsement/Ex-A8 dtd.28.03.13 on the grounds “signature differs.” This Ex-A8 becomes the subject matter of this complaint.

         

          12. The Complainant had issued the legal notice/Ex-A9 dtd.03.05.13 reiterating the previous history of change of spellings of his name till KYC norms were compiled by him at the time of getting the endorsement/Ex-A7 from the Opposite party bank who advised for re-presentation of the same.  The Complainant further alleged that the return of the cheque wide Ex-A8/endorsement, made him to loose the privilege of booking his opted apartment of Vaibhav developers and it was occurred only due to gross negligence and deficiency in service of the bank officials which ultimately made him to suffer with great hardship and mental agony apart from loosing of his reputation and thereby he demanded total compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs. The said notice was served on the Opposite party wide postal endorsement/Ex-A11 and the Opposite party has sent the letter/Ex-A12 about another cheque no.5076 for Rs.2,000/- stating that it was returned from their service branch as there was technical reasons in tagging his signature in the system and thereby expressed their regretness for the inconvenience caused, further stating that they rectified the signature scanning/tagging in their record.

 

          13. The duty of care to be taken by the banker includes to protect the interest of the customer/account holder, in maintaining his account and towards the operating of the same by the account holder and it gets more importance, as the negligence or deficiency in service, definitely effects the reputation of the party/account holder in the society with the other business concern, in addition to the inconvenience/hardship that causes to him, to explain such awkward situation. In this connection the responsibility is more on the banking system to have the co-ordination among separate sections dealing with the separate staff members. In this case, co-ordination appears remained non-functional one. Ex-A12/apology letter dtd.21.10.13, regarding dishonour of next 2^nd cheque of this disputed cheque shows that the rectification regarding the signature scanning and tagging in the banking records, made the bank to inform with regretness about the inconvenience caused to the Complainant, raising the grounds that there was technical reasons in tagging his signature to the system. The said signature to be tagged to the system was informed by the Complainant to the bank not only through Ex-A3/intimation letter dtd.28.06.10 but also through complying the KYC process norms when the disputed cheque was returned dishonoured for the first time. It appears that though the Complainant reminded with notice/Ex-A9 dtd.03.05.13, though it was delivered to the bank on 04.05.13 wide Ex-A11, no proper response was given by the Opposite party. The Opposite party had to tag his modified signature long back but without complying their duty, simply by writing the letter/Ex-A12, kept silent without answering for their latches being committed from long time. Such silence of the bank on their responsible aspects amounts to deficiency in their service. It is not the case of the Opposite party that the alleged technical process or the non-compliance of process of tagging the signature to the system was beyond their control. The explanation for their lapses on their duty becomes inconsistent and goes against their own assurance given through Ex-A7/endorsement. They have not explained why the said complaint was not attended, atleast during the compliance of the process under KYC and why the lapses if any on the part of the Complainant were not made out, thereafter till the system was updated. Thereby it is clear that the Opposite party bank has committed deficiency in service causing the inconvenience to the transaction of the Complainant with the builder and others and thereby it has to be held the Complainant has proved the Consumer Dispute no.1.  Accordingly the Consumer Dispute no.1 is answered in the affirmative.

         

14. Consumer Dispute No.2: Mere dishonour of the cheque does not disentitle the Complainant to book the flat, as   the Complainant being the Chartered Engineer had the opportunity to convince the builder and to make alternative arrangements. No sufficient documentary materials are also placed to connect the dishonour of cheque and the cancellation of the booking of the flat. Hence the inconvenience and the hardship caused to the Complainant because of the deficiency in service by the Opposite party/bank can be estimated to the extent of Rs.25,000/-. In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1, the Complainant deserves to get the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The CC.No.1580/2013 filed by the Complainant is hereby partly allowed.

 

          2. The Opposite party/bank is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant towards its deficiency in service and hardship caused to the Complainant with interest at 12% p.a. within 30 days, in default, to pay the same with interest at 18% p.a.  

 

          3. The Opposite party/bank is also directed to pay the litigation charges of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 25^th September of 2017).

 

(SURESH.D)          MEMBER

(VASANTHKUMAR.H.Y)  PRESIDENT

 

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Complainant’s change of name affidavit dtd.06.07.10
Ex-A2	Bengaluru Mirror newspaper clipping showing the change of name of the Complainant dtd.10.07.10
Ex-A3	Letter dtd.28.06.10 to OP
Ex-A4	Statement of account
Ex-A5	Cheque dtd.13.02.13 issued by the Complainant
Ex-A6	Receipt dtd.13.02.13 issued by Vaibhav developers
Ex-A7	Letter dtd.26.02.13 issued by OP
Ex-A8	Letter dtd.28.03.13 Syndicate bank to Vaibhav developers
Ex-A9	Legal notice dtd.03.05.13
Ex-A10	Letter to post master by Complainant’s advocate
Ex-A11	Letter dtd.24.06.13 from postal department
Ex-A12	Letter dtd.21.10.13 issued by OP

 

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

(SURESH.D)          MEMBER

(VASANTHKUMAR.H.Y)  PRESIDENT