District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Sambalpur

CC No. 62/2017

Marathi Rama Rao,

S/0- Late M. Tirupati Rao,

R/O- Arya Samaj Mandir, A.N.Guha Lane

PO-Sambalpur, Ps- Town,

Dist- Sambalpur (Odisha) - 768001                  ………………….......Complainant

                                     Vrs.

1. State Bank Of India

Represented through its chief Manager,

Branch office situated

At-Budharaja, Po- Budharaja,

Ps- Ainthapali, Dist- Sambalpur

(Odisha)- 768004

2. The Chairman, State Bank of India,

3rd Floor, G-Block, Synergy Building,

Bandra Kurla Complex-Bandra East,

Mumbai-(Behind National Stock Exchange)                ...........opposite Party

       For Complainant                                              : R.C. Dash and Associates

       For O.P.s No.1 & 2 & Others                       : L.K. Panigrahi and Associates

        PRESENT:-  SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT

                               SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER                        

Date of Order: 19/07/2019

SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant is a customer of opposite party No.1, having his saving Account No. 30948629675 and its CIF No. 85657643261. On dated 12.08.2016 when the complainant went to the Opposite party No.1 Bank, He came to know that a sum of Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) has been fraudulently withdrawn on dated 03.08.2016 without knowledge of the complainant.
2. The Complainant Immediately brought the matter to the knowledge of Opposite Party No.1-Bank’s Staff who were present on that day i.e. 12.08.2016 in the counter as well as the Branch Manager.
3. The complainant had requested the O.P. No.1 several times both orally and though his written letters to take proper action and to recover the same amount of fraudulent withdrawal, but all in vain.
4. On dated 22.08.2016 the Chief Manager (Admin) vide his letter No. RBO-II/SAM/CM/ADMIN/2016/17/1281, informed simple acknowledgement receipt of the complainant and he intimated the matter to the Chief Manager, SBI Budharaja Branch, Budhraja, for early redressal. But till date the complainant has not received any information about the recovery of the said amount i.e. Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) from the O.P. Bank.
5. A huge amount i.e. Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) was paid to a third party other than the account holder in the present date of digitalization and how the Bank Staff or accountant not properly checked, tallied and verified the signature in the withdrawal slip which was quite different from the specimen signature of the account holder.
6. That, the complainant on the above ground prayed that this Hon’ble forum may kindly be pleased to pass order-

1. That, opposite party may be directed to refund the above mentioned fraudulent withdrawal amount of Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) with interest of 12% per annum from the date of withdrawal.
2. That, opposite party may also be directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand) only to the complainant for causing delay to refund the said withdrawn amount and therefore causing mental agony and harassment by arbitrary and unlawful manner.
3. That, opposite party may also be directed to pay an interest over the awarded amount at the rate of 12% per annum.
4. Further the opposite party may also be directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards the cost of the proceeding.

List OF Documents Filed by The Complainant

1. Xerox copy of Bank Pass Book issued in the name of Mr. Marathi Rama Rao bearing  Account No. 30948629675. Marked as ANNEXURE-I
2. Xerox copy of the letter addressed to the Manager SBI Budharaja, Sambalpur, Dt. 17.08.2016. Marked as ANNEXURE-II
3. Xerox copy of the letter send by the Chief Manager (Admin) bearing letter No. RBO-II/SAM/CM/ADMIN/2016/17/1281, dt. 22.08.2016. Marked as ANNEXURE-III.
4. Xerox copy of the letter addressed to the Chief Manager SBI Budharaja Branch, Sambalpur dt. 30.08.2016. Marked as ANNEXURE-IV
5. Xerox copy of the letter addressed to the Chief Manager SBI Budharaja Branch, Sambalpur dt. 19.09.2016. Marked as ANNEXURE-V
6. Other documents which is required at the time of hearing.

The Opposite parties  filed their written statement as follows:-

1. Admitted that complainant is a customer of the O.P. No.1. On 12.08.2016 the complainant has applied for duplicate passbook and up dated it on the same day. But he has not made any complaint regarding the fraudulent withdrawal of money from his account on the same day
2. The letter of the complainant Dt. 17/08/2016 was only to preserve the CCTV footage of 03.08.2016 and to cause enquiry regarding the fraudulent withdrawal of 90,000/- from his SB Account. The Complainant has never claimed the defrauded amount from the bank vide his letter Dt. 17.08.2016.
3. The Opposite Party has taken all appropriate steps as requested by the complainant and co-operated the investigation taken up by the police in this connection.
4. A Police case has been instituted against Narendra Mahakur vide Town P.S. Case No. 345 of Dt. 01.09.2016 and in connection with the said criminal case, the investigation officer has seized Account transaction statement, Cheque requisition letter, original withdrawal slip Dt. 03.08.2016, one previous withdrawal slip and CCTV footage of the concerned date.
5. Further he avers that Narendra Mahakur was arrested by the Town Police and forwarded to the court of S.D.J.M. Sambalpur and the criminal trial against the said person is pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Sambalpur. Moreover, on the complaint of the complainant, Banking Ombudsman has also initiated one complaint case vide No 987 of 2016-17, which is also pending for disposal.
6. On the relevant date, the signed withdrawal slip was produced along with the passbook for payment and the signature of the depositor was apparently matching therefore the payment was made as per the guideline of the bank. Therefore the Bank is not liable in any manner for the loss caused to the complainant.

7.                                         The Complainant and the O.P’s learned Advocates advanced their arguments. Gone thoroughly with it. Perused the written statement filed by both parties. The complainant has filed list of documents. The O.P. No.1 i.e. the contesting party has not filed any documents.
8. From the perusal of records, the annexure filed by the complainant and the written version filed by the Answering party i.e. O.P. No.1 it is clear that some person withdrew the amount of Rs. 90,000/- by forging the signature of the complainant.
9. One Narendra Mahakur was apprehended by the police in this connection and forwarded the case to S.D.J.M. Sambalpur. The criminal case is still pending before the learned S.D.J.M. Sambalpur. In the Criminal case the accused will be punished for his misadventure as trial.
10.  We are concerned with the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 in this case.
11.  So in the case some interrelated issues are involved. (1) Whether the O.P. No.1 allowed withdrawal (as alleged by complainant) of Rs. 90,000/- by a third person from the SB Account of the complainant or not (2) Whether the withdrawal amounts to deficiency or not and (3) To what relief to the complainant is entitled to.
12.  Issue No. 1 and 2 are taken up together. It is the clear case of the complainant that he went to the premises of O.P. No.1 on Dt. 12/08/2016 and came to know that on Dt. 03/08/2016 Rs. 90,000/- was withdrawn from his saving account fraudulently.
13.  He brought the matter before the C.G.M. immediately anticipating that the fraudulent withdrawal might lead to a police action and therefore requested for preservation of CCTV footage. He also requested for Redressal of his grievances. This can be gleaned from Annexure-II Dt. 17.05.2016.
14.  Annexure –IV Dt. 30.08.2016 is also on the same line. In Annexure V Dt. 19.09.2016 he has requested for payment of the fraudulent amount withdrawn by the third party without any authority.
15.  The O.P. No.1’s defence is quite hopeless. Instead of adverting to Annexure V they are simply defending the case by stating that letter Dt. 17.08.2016 is only for preservation of the CCTV footage of Dt. 03.08.2016. They have admitted to the Police seizing their original documents and involvement of one Narendra Mahakur.
16.  In Para 10 of their written version they took the defence that the signature was apparently matching, hence payment was made.
17. For withdrawal of huge amount of Rs. 90,000/- the staff casually matched the signature. Otherwise such amount would not have been allowed to be withdrawn. The O.P. No.1 has not placed any record for our verification. Hence we opine that they are suppressing material facts before us and also they are guilty of screening of the staff involved in this fraudulent withdrawal.
18.  The O.P. No.1 has doubted the integrity of the complainant and also avers that he has not asked for recovery of money. This is beyond our comprehension. How the service provider can say that the customer/complainant is of doubtful integrity. On the other hand the actions taken in matching of the signature leads to the doubtful integrity of the staff. They also deny the Annexure-v to their peril.
19.  Hence we hold that the O.P. No.1 is deficient. They are also arrogant in calling the complainant a person of doubtful integrity. Hence issue no. 1 and 2 are answering against the O.P. No.1.

Issue No.3

1. The Bank is a service provider. It is established to serve the customer. From the service charges the staff’s are drawing their salaries. They have neither any right to allow fraudulent withdrawal nor any such authority to call the customer/complainant of doubtful integrity when their integrity is in doubtful in this case. 
2. They have not made public the in house inquiry report. Hence we believe that they are screening the staff involved from any action.
3. The case is of 3 years old and the O.P. No.1 has not taken any step to make good the loss suffered by the complainant on the plea that he has not asked for it.
4. By virtue of annexure-V, they should have done it earlier as the loss supposed to accrue to the Bank, might have been insured. They could have made payment by taking one indemnity bond from the complainant. By not doing this act, they have left the complainant with mental agony and harassment. They are also guilty of not letting the complainant to utilise his own money at the time of his need.

Hence we order that the O.P.No.1is liable to pay Rs. 90,000/- which was allowed to be withdrawn fraudulently along with an interest @9% from the date of withdrawal i.e. 03.08.2016 till payment. The O.P. No.1 is also liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- for causing mental agony and calling the customer of doubtful integrity.

The O.P. No.1 is also saddled with cost of Rs. 5,000/- towards the litigating charges.

            All the payment be made within 30 days of passing of this order otherwise it will carry a penal interest of 12% on the above amount till payment.

                                                                                                                  Sd/- 

                                                                                                 SHRI A.P.MUND

                  Sd/-                                                                                           PRESIDENT.

SMT S.TRIPATHY. Member I agree.

                                                                                                                        Sd/-          

                                                                                                  Dictated and corrected by me.

                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT