State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionBank Of India vs Shailesh T Kansara on 30 July, 2021Details         DD       MM        YY\n                                     Date of Judgment     30       07       2021\n                                       Date of filling    25       03       2013\n                                         Duration         05       04        08\n\n\n        BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,\n                     GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.\n                              Court-3\n          APPEAL NO. 1126 of 2013                               Dt: 30.07.2021\n\n\n             Manager Shri,\n             Bank of India,\n             Tower, Tal-Dist: Navsari                            ...Appellant\n\n                               Vs.\n\n             Shailesh Thakorlal Kansara\n             4/1089, Potaliyavad,\n             Dandagvad Tekro,\n             Tal- Dist: Navsari                                  ...Respondent\n\n         Appearance: Mr. K. M. Parikh, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant\n                     Mr. M. K. Dudhiya, Ld. Advocate for the respondent\n\n             Coram: (Shri S. N. Vakil, Member)\n                    (Smt. J. Y. Shukla, Member)\n\n             Order by Shri S. N. Vakil, Member1. This Appeal is by the Opponent Bank.2. The    Complainant   -   Shailesh     Thakorlal   Kansara,    filed   consumer\n\n    Complaint No. 103 of 2012 with CDRF, Navsari, that he is having\n\n    Savings Accounts No. 17351 with the opponent bank of India, was issued\n\n    cheque-book and issued cheque No. 0567639 for Rs. 5,462/- to pay for\n\n    renewal of his insurance policy with the Oriental Insurance Policy\n\n    Limited on 20.10.2011, it returned for the signature defer for and the\n\n    insurance company cancelled the policy. As he had cardiac trouble, took\n\n    treatment with the Orange Hospital at Navsari and care Hospital atK.S.P                                  A-13-1126                            Page 1 of 7Surat, was operated on 31.12.2011 and discharged on 07.01.2012. The\n\n    expenses were Rs. 1,72,100/-. He could not get expenses of Rs.\n\n    1,72,100/- from the insurance company, it having cancelled the policy\n\n    for return of cheque as aforesaid. The complainant came to know of the\n\n    cancellation of the policy only when he lodged the claim and was refused\n\n    by the insurance company. The insurance company never corresponded\n\n    by letter for cancellation of the policy, and the bank also passed other\n\n    cheques without any objection. The bank, having returned the cheque as\n\n    aforesaid his policy was cancelled. For this deficiency he claims Rs. 3\n\n    lakhs from the bank with 18% interest from the date of complaint, Rs.\n\n    10,000/- towards mental pain and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.3. The defence vide written version, is of denial. The bank renders services\n\n    for charge. In fact the bank is paying interest on the balance in the\n\n    savings account and no charge was received the complainant is not a\n\n    consumer. The complainant issued the cheque for payment of premium\n\n    is denied. It is not proved from the documents produced by the\n\n    complainant that the cheque returned for the endorsement of the\n\n    signature defers. In the Memo of the cheque returned produced by the\n\n    complainant, there is no date mentioned nor does it bear any signature of\n\n    the bank manager nor any stamp. Therefore, it cannot be said by which\n\n    branch the cheque was returned and on which date. There is no\n\n    endorsement of return of cheque or stamp of the bank or signature of\n\n    bank officer on the cheque No. 567639. The Oriented Insurance\n\n    Company informed return of the chque to the complainant and\n\n    cancellation of the policy on 31.01.2011. The insurance company has\n\n    cancelled the policy on 31.01.2011 for the reason of dishonor of cheque.K.S.P                               A-13-1126                          Page 2 of 7Thus, the complainant had knowledge on 31.01.2011 that the cheque he\n\n    issued has been retuned and the policy cancelled. He was admitted in the\n\n    hospital on 31.12.2011. Under these facts the complainant did not take\n\n    care to reissue the cheque or renew his policy by payment of cash or by\n\n    the new cheque nor given any information or notice to the insurance\n\n    company or the bank and remained indolent for 11 months. The law does\n\n    not help of indolent. The original specimen signature card of 14.07.1980\n\n    and the last of 10.09.2003 after his wife name was entered, have been\n\n    produced on records. Signatures on the cheque No. 567639 absolutely\n\n    defers from the signatures on the said cards, and there is a big difference\n\n    in signatures. Under this circumstances, the cheque could not be passed.\n\n    The complainant has not produced statement or pass book of his bank\n\n    account. Therefore, it cannot be said which cheque was passed and\n\n    which did not. Comparing the signature with the specimen signature\n\n    card it has to be decided by the bank officer whether to pass cheque or\n\n    return it, wherein there cannot be any interference. The complainant has\n\n    not joined the oriental insurance company, for which the complainant\n\n    suffers from non-joiner of party. The complaint is false and with a motive\n\n    to obtain illegally money from the bank. There is no deficiency in service.4. The CDRF, Navsari by its judgment dated 25.02.2013 partly allowed the\n\n    complaint, ordered the bank to pay the complainant Rs. 1,72,100/- with\n\n    9% interest from the date of complaint, Rs. 2,000/- towards mental pain\n\n    and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. It is on the ground that it is not in\n\n    dispute that the disputed cheque was returned for signature differ. It\n\n    cannot be said that the cheque did not return simply by the reason that\n\n    return memo did not contain signature of the officer and stamp of theK.S.P                                A-13-1126                            Page 3 of 7bank. Therefore, the bank returned the cheque for signature differs. The\n\n    first card produced is dated 14.07.1980 and thereafter of 2003, therefore,\n\n    the complainant has changed the signature afterwards. The cheques\n\n    dated 16.01.2012, 06.07.2009, 03.08.2009 bears same signature as that\n\n    of 20.01.2011. All these cheques bear same signatures, therefore, while\n\n    passing the cheque the bank should have undoubtedly believed the\n\n    signature as per the specimen signature. Therefore, the bank showed\n\n    deficiency in service by returning the cheque.The endorsement of the\n\n    policy reads that it has become void ab-initio for want of consideration on\n\n    account of dishonor of cheque. Therefore, there is no bar of non-joinder\n\n    of the insurance company. It is a lame excuse that the complainant\n\n    remained idle for 11 months.Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs.\n\n    State Bank of India, 2007 (1) CPR (NC) 27 and Laknaw Development\n\n    Authority Vs. N. K. Gupta, 1994 (1) SCC 273, applies to the case of hand.The complainant account with the bank is a consumer vide Standard\n\n    Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. D. M. Ramma, 2007 (1) CPR 59 (SC).5. Being aggrieved by the same, the opponent bank has preferred this\n\n    appeal on the ground that the forum committed error in appreciating the\n\n    facts. The complaints suffer from non-joinder of parties. The bank having\n\n    not taken any charge, the complainant is not a consumer. The cheque\n\n    was returned with the endorsement of signature differ on 20.01.2011, the\n\n    insurance company also informed the complainant by its letter dated\n\n    31.01.2011 yet he remained ideal for 11 months. The forum did not\n\n    appreciate this. The specimen signature cards where on record with\n\n    which the signature did not match and the forum committed error in\n\n    holding the bank liable on the ground that the other cheques wereK.S.P                                A-13-1126                           Page 4 of 7passed. It is within the discretionary power of the bank when there is any\n\n    mistake or anything wrong, to return the cheque. The cheque was\n\n    returned for signature differs. The court committed error in holding that\n\n    the bank officer should have undoubtedly believed the signature as per\n\n    the specimen signature when the other cheques were passed from the\n\n    same account.6. Heard Learned Advocate Shri K. M. Parikh, for the appellant and Shri M.\n\n    K. Dudhiya, for the respondent.7. The Hon'ble Forum has not held that the signature upon the cheque\n\n    dated 20.01.2011 matched with the specimen signature cards so also is\n\n    not complainant's say. Certainly, the specimen signature on the cheque\n\n    dated 20.01.2011 bearing No. 0567639 (marked 3/1) did not match with\n\n    the   specimen   signature   with   the   cards   dated   14.07.1980,     and\n\n    10.09.2003 (marked: 12/1 and 12/2) and the cheque bears endorsement\n\n    signs differ. Therefore, it is obvious that the bank officer could not have\n\n    pass the cheque at all. The return memo marked 3/2 gives reason of\n\n    return at 4(a) drawer's signature differs. The letter of insurance company\n\n    dated 31.01.2011 (marked 3/8) reads that the cheque No. 0567639 dated\n\n    20.01.2011 for Rs. 5,462/- towards premium against the policy No.\n\n    172/199/48/0211/10893 has been dishonored with the remarks\n\n    signature does not match and therefore, the policy stands cancelled ab-\n\n    initio due to non-receipt of consideration and the company is not on risk\n\n    nor any claim will be entertained. Cheques dated 06.07.2009 (No.\n\n    0567634 and 03.08.2009 (No. 0567635) do bear the same signatures as\n\n    appearing on the cheque dated 20.01.2011 or even of the cheque dated\n\n    16.01.2012 (marked 3/4, 5 and 3) but that does not mean that the bankK.S.P                                 A-13-1126                             Page 5 of 7was obliged to pass cheque even when the signature on the disputed\n\n    cheque did not match with the specimen signature cards. The\n\n    complainant has not shown any rule to the effect that the bank was\n\n    obliged to pass cheques even when the signature differs from the\n\n    specimen signature in the card with the bank nor to the effect that when\n\n    the bank has passed cheques the signature whereof did not even match\n\n    with the specimen signature. The bank was therefore obliged not to pass\n\n    cheque whose signature do not match with the specimen signature. The\n\n    dates 06.07.2009, 03.08.2009 and 16.01.2012 were definitely not with\n\n    the bank officer while endorsing on the disputed cheque dated\n\n    20.01.2011 "sign differs", by the specimen signature card. The bank\n\n    officer did as per the banking practice and procedure only and rightly so,\n\n    therefore, the findings of the learned forum cannot be upheld.8. Now, when the complainant was in knowledge of cancellation of policy for\n\n    dishonor of cheque as above by letter of insurance company dated\n\n    31.01.2011, it cannot to believed that he came to know of this fact only\n\n    when he preferred claim with the insurance company after 31.12.2011.\n\n    Therefore, it is clear that he cannot blame the bank for the fault with\n\n    himself.9. For aforesaid reasons the judgment of the Hon'ble Forum cannot be\n\n    sustained, and the appeal deserves to be allowed with dismissal of the\n\n    complaint, for which following final order is passed.FINAL ORDERi) Appeal No. 1126 of 2013 is allowed.K.S.P                                A-13-1126                          Page 6 of 7ii) The judgment and order passed by the CDRF, Navsari on 25.02.2013 in\n        CC No. 103 of 2012 is reversed, with dismissal of the complaint.iii) No order as to costs.iv) Registry is directed to pay the deposited amount, with accrued interest,\n        if any, on proper verification to the appellant by account payee cheque\n        and the cheque be handed over to the advocate for the appellant after\n        obtaining receipt.v) Registry is directed to send a copy this order to the District Commission\n        Navsari, through E-mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.vi) Copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of charge.Pronounced in the open Court today on 30th day of July, 2021.(J.Y.Shukla)                 (S.N.Vakil)\n                             Member                       Judicial MemberK.S.P                                   A-13-1126                          Page 7 of 7