HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. KUNAL KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above mentioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both have been preferred against order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur Camp, Jaipur in complaint No. 43/08 ( 1012/06 II ) and in both appeals parties are the same and question of law and facts are also identical in nature Appeal No. 1648/2008

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant bank which was opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum against order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur Camp, Jaipur in complaint No. 43/08 ( 1012/06 II ) by which the complaint of complainant respondent No. 1 was allowed against the appellant in the manner that the appellant bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as amount of compensation for returning the cheque of the complainant respondent No. 1 without any basis and without encashing it and appellant was further directed to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on the above amount w.e.f. 29.8.06 and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation.

(3.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the complainant respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint against the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the District Forum, Jaipur IInd on 29.8.2006 inter alia stating that the complainant respondent was having a saving bank account with the appellant bank and he had issued a cheque of Rs. 1,80,000 bearing No. 067481 dated 3.7.2006 for allotment of shares of Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. and the cheque is marked Anx. 2. It was further stated in the complaint that instead of clearing the said cheque the same was wrongly dishonoured or returned by the appellant bank through Anx. 3 and the reason which was assigned by the appellant bank was that the signatures of the complainant respondent No. 1 on the cheque Anx. 2 were not according to the specimen signatures of the complainant respondent No. 1. It was further stated in the complaint that since the cheque in question was returned without any basis and that would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank and further because of returning of the cheque without encashing, the shares which could have been allotted by Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. were not allotted to complainant respondent No. 1 and for that deficiency, the present complaint was filed by the complainant claiming Rs. 6 lacs and further Rs. 1 lac as compensation for mental agony, etc. etc. A reply was filed by the appellant bank before the District Forum, Jaipur IInd on 23.3.07 and the case of the appellant bank was that unless the shares were allotted to the complainant respondent No. 1, the complainant respondent No. 1 could not be termed as consumer and it was further stated that since the signatures of the complainant on disputed cheque Anx. 2 were not tallying with the specimen signatures which were in the bank's record, therefore, as per the banking practice the cheque in question was rightly returned to the complainant respondent No. 1 and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Jaipur Camp, Jaipur through impugned order dated 7.8.08 had allowed the complaint against the appellant bank inter alia holding that the manner in which the cheque was returned encashed or uncredited was not justified and there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank and if there was minor changes in the writing, the appellant bank should have first informed the complainant respondent No. 1 before returning the cheque and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank and complaint against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed. Aggrieved from the said order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur Camp, Jaipur, this appeal has been filed by the appellant bank.