B.C. Gupta ORDER
Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)
1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 30.03.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. FA/12/909, arising out of the order dated 25.05.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (Suburban) in Consumer Complaint No. 545/2008.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainants/respondents are joint holders of a Bank account at Andheri Branch of the petitioner State Bank of India at Mumbai since 2005. The complainants stated that they were holders of 5900 equity shares of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. In December 2007, the said Company came out with a Rights Issue and offered additional equity shares at the price of Rs. 300/- per share to the existing shareholders. The complainants made an application dated 17.12.2007 for allotment of 1180 shares of the Company, offered to them and issued a cheque bearing No. 836857 dated 17.12.2007 for Rs. 3,54,000/-, signed by complainant No. 2, Dr. R.G. Jimulia. The said cheque, when presented by the HDFC Bank, which was the collecting bank for the Rights Issue, was dishonoured by the opposite party/OP Bank on 20.12.2007 on the ground that the signatures on the cheque did not match with the signatures of the account holder complainant. It is alleged in the consumer complaint that the said fact came to their knowledge, when they got their passbook updated after the closure of the aforesaid Rights Issue on or about 09.01.2008. In response to their letter sent to the OP, they received a reply on 10.01.2008 that the said cheque was dishonoured by their Central Processing Cell for the reasons ' drawer's signatures differ'. It is alleged by the complainants that the Bank did not give them any information regarding dishonour of the cheque, for which they were put to loss on account of non-allotment of shares under the Rights Issue. The complainant sent a legal notice on 25.03.2008 to the OPs to compensate them by paying Rs. 7 lakhs, being the market value of the shares on the date of dishonour of the cheque. The consumer complaint was then filed, seeking directions to the OPs to purchase 1180 shares of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and provide the same to the complainants @ Rs. 300/- per share, or in the alternative, to pay a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs alongwith interest @ 24% per annum to compensate for the loss suffered by them. The complainants also demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony etc. and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
3. In the written statement filed before the District Forum, the OP Bank denied the allegations against them, saying that after the cheque was presented for clearance by the HDFC Bank Ltd. with their Central Processing Cell, the specimen signatures of the complainants were compared with the signatures on the cheque and they declined to clear the cheque, as they found the signatures on the cheque different. The OP Bank returned the cheque to the HDFC Bank with a written memo, saying that the signatures were different. There was no deficiency in service on their part, rather the complainants should have been prudent to enquire about the clearance of their cheque, when they had made application for allotment of Rights shares. The OP Bank also stated that their Andheri (West) Branch was not involved in any manner in the whole process of presentation and dishonour of cheque.
4. The District Forum, while dealing with the consumer complaint, framed the following issues:-
"1. Does the complainant prove that on the part of the opp. party there was deficiency in service offered to the complainant with regard to the cheque?
2. Is the complainant a consumer of the opp. party as per Sec 2(1)(d)(II) of the Consumer Protection Act?
3. Final order"
5. After considering the averments of the parties, the District Forum concluded that there was deficiency i........