Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/555

M/S SIDDHU CANSULTENCI SERCISES - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 05.04.2016 passed in C.C.No.271/2015 by District Commission, Rewa)

 

M/S SIDDHU CONSULTANCY SERVICES

THROUGH BALWINDER SINGH SIDDHU

S/O SHRI JASVEER SINGH SIDDHU,

R/O BANSGHAAT, REWA, TEHSIL-HUZUR

DISTRICT-REWA (M.P.)                                                                                             ….       APPELLANT

 

                           VERSUS

UNION BANK OF INDIA,

BRANCH-NEHRU NAGAR, REWA

THROUGH MANAGER,

16/1308, NH-7, ALLAHABAD ROAD, BARA,

REWA TEHSIL-HUZUR, DISTRICT-REWA (M.P.)                                              ….       RESPONDENT.

                    

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU KEMKAR      :   PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                   :   MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                                     :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:

                

     Shri Sandeep Guru, learned counsel for the appellant.

                 Shri H. R. Mutreja, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                                                

O R D E R

(Passed On 05.07.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Judicial Member:   

                   This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.271/2015, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant/appellant had a current bank account no. 631301010050125 and a savings bank

-2-

account no.631303010007715 with the opposite party/respondent bank. It is alleged that signatures of the complainant on the cheques issued during the period 23.09.2015 to 20.10.2015 were same which were on the cheques issued after 20.10.2015. However, on 23.10.2015, the cheque issued by the complainant in favour of Prabhakar Dwivedi for Rs.95,000/- was returned by the bank on the ground that the signatures are different. Employees of the bank abused and beaten him for which complainant was arrested and criminal case is pending.  Again on 27.10.2015, when the complainant himself approached the bank to withdraw Rs.47,000/- via cheque no. 006604, again a note was given to him by the bank that the signatures are different. It is alleged that when he requested that he will sign the cheque again, he was told that close your accounts as we don’t want to continue banking with you. On being asked in to give such in written, the complainant was asked in writing to give update specimen signature, which he refused. On legal notice being given to the bank, the bank vide letter dated 27.10.2015 informed the complainant that your accounts will be closed within 20 days. On 27.10.2015, a letter was sent to him for updated specimen signature.  The complainant therefore filed a complaint against the bank, before the District Commission seeking direction to the opposite party bank to continue the accounts of the complainant and to provide banking facilities along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

 

-3-

3.                The opposite party -bank admitted the fact of bank accounts, and return of cheques for want of different signatures and the dispute with one employee Ms. Preeti Singh. However, denied all the other allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that since the cheque issued by the complainant to Prabhakar Dwivedi had different signatures other than the specimen signatures of the complainant, while opening the account available with the bank, therefore the same was not encashed. On this the complainant became angry and talked inexplicably. The complainant unnecessary troubling the employees of the bank. Since the signatures on the cheques issued by him were not matched with the specimen signatures, the bank employees asked him to give updated specimen signatures, but he refused to do so. The bank has not committed any deficiency in service.      

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that from the evidence available on record, the complainant failed to prove that the opposite party bank has committed deficiency in service and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the bank.

5.                Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the employees of the respondent bank deliberately returned all the cheques issued by the appellant with bad intention on the ground that the signatures are different

-4-

whereas the other branch of the same bank made payment of the cheques. The District Commission failed to consider this aspect and erred in dismissing the complaint. The impugned order is therefore deserves to be set-aside.

7.                Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank argued that on comparison of signatures on the cheque with the specimen signatures of the cheque issuing person, the bank found the signatures are different and while returning the cheques, the bank cannot be said to have committed deficiency in service. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant. 

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the evidence available on record we find from the document C-3, filed by the appellant himself, it is clear that the respondent bank wrote the appellant that since your signatures are different from the initial specimen signatures obtained by the bank at the time of opening the accounts, on the cheques, therefore you may update your specimen signatures, which was refused by you.  At your request, earlier cheques were passed but now the bank is unable to pass the cheques.  We find that this fact was admitted by the complainant/appellant himself in his complaint that the complainant/appellant on being asked to give his updated specimen signatures, he refused to do so.

-5-

9.                On perusal of record, we find that the respondent bank has filed affidavits of Shri Rizwan Ansari, Bank Officer, Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Cashier, Shri Himanchal Singh Parihar, Bank Officer and lastly Ms. Preeti Singh, Asistant Manager stating therein that the appellant used to abuse them and therefore, a police complaint was lodged and thereupon a crime under Sections 294, 302, 353 & 506B was registered against him at Crime No. 85/15. Ms. Preeti Singh in her affidavit also confirmed this fact and has stated that looking to the banking business she had given her mobile number to him on which he used to talk in bawdy language with her.

10.              It is true that before making payment it is duty of the bank to compare the signatures of the cheque issuing person on the cheque with the specimen signatures available with the bank record and on comparing the signatures if it were found different and the bank refuse to make the payment, it cannot be said that the bank has committed deficiency in service.

11.              Had the complainant given his updated specimen signature and thereafter, if the bank would have refused to accept the cheques with updated specimen then it could be said that the bank had committed deficiency in service but in the present case despite repeated requests of the bank he did not give his specimen signature to the bank.

 

-6-

12.              Ms. Preeti Singh, Asistant Manager in her affidavit specifically stated that the complainant used to abuse and misbehave with her. In such circumstances, when the complainant refused to update his specimen signature and used to abuse and misbehave with the bank employees, we find that the conduct of the complainant is not fair and cannot be overlooked and therefore, he cannot be permitted to misuse the beneficiary provisions of the Act by allowing the complaint.

13.              Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we find, the bank has not committed deficiency in service in not making the payment of cheques, when the signatures on the cheques were found different and not matched with the specimen signatures.

14.              Thus we do not find that the District Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint. The impugned order which is passed after proper appreciation of evidence available on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, does not call for any interference.

15.              In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs

 

  (Justice Shantanu Kemkar)    (S. S. Bansal)     (A. K. Tiwari)

             President                         Member        Judicial Member