DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __169_ _ OF ___2014
DATE OF FILING :_21.4.2014 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 5.04.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Monnab Laskar, s/o Moslem Laskar of Kanthal Beria, Ainuddin Para, P.O Kanthal Beria, P.S Basanti, South 24-Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. State Bank of India, Canning Branch, Canning , P.S Canning, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743329.
2. The Manager, State Bank of India, Canning Branch, P.S Canning, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743329.
_________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The instant case is filed by the complainant under section 12, C.P Act, 1986 against the O.Ps Bank ,alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Quaint essence of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case runs as follows.
The complainant maintains one SB Account no. 30891014210 with the O.P Bank. He updated his pass book and came to know that Rs.20,000/- and Rs.8000/- have been withdrawn on 22.8.2013 and 26.8.2013 respectively by someone fraudulently from his account. He demanded refund of the said amount, but the O.Ps declined to gratify the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for refund of the said amount and also for compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.Ps Bank has filed written statement, wherein it is contended inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law and that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. According to the O.P Bank, on 22.8.2013, Rs.20,000/- and on 26.8.2013, Rs.8000/- were withdrawn by the complainant through SB withdrawal form. The bank made payment to the complainant after having verified the signature of withdrawal slip and the specimen signature of the complainant kept in the bank. The case of the complainant is a malafide one ,requiring dismissal of the case.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in law?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps in allowing withdrawl dated 22.8.2013 and 26.8.2013 from the account of the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence on affidavit of the complainant vide his petition dated 8.11.2016. BNAs are filed by both the parties and the same are kept in the record after consideration. Expert report received by this Forum is also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the O.P Bank has contended that the instant case is not maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Forum. According to him, the Forum cannot entertain any complaint seeking compensation based on the action arisen out of fraud, forgery and cheating. In the instant case, money has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant by a fraudster and this being so, the matter requires elaborate investigation which is not possible by this Forum. So, according to him, the matter should be relegated to the Civil Court and this Forum cannot entertain such kind of matter.
Now to see whether the Consumer Forum is well in its jurisdiction to entertain a case relating to action arising out of fraud, forgery and cheating. The issue fell into consideration of the Hon’ble Apex court, in the case of J.J Merchant (Dr.) Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 629, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“ This submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that the Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the civil court. For the Trial to be just and reasonable, long drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It would be kept in mind that the legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be a totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of act are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards.”
In the case of C.C.I Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. V. Development Credit Bank Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“ It cannot be denied that Fora at the national level, the State level and at the District Level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Act. These Fora have been established and conferred with the jurisdiction in addition to the conventional courts. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such Fora is to relieve the conventional courts of their burden which is ever increasing with the mounting arrears and whereat the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because reading of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, can not be a ground for shutting the doors of any forum under the Act to the person aggrieved.”
In Sutlej Textile & Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in 2009 (3) CPR 314 (NC) , the Apex Consumer Commission has held as follows:
“ 15. The illustrations would show that despite allegations of fraud, forgery, cheating, etc., the consumer Fora have been entertaining complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the service provider. Therefore, the main plank on which the jurisdiction of consumer For a to entertain a complaint depends is the nature of allegations , viz., whether the complaint contains allegations of defect in goods, deficiency in service etc., as defined in sub-section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act as “any default , imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”
“17. The question , as to whether a consumer forum should entertain a complaint where certain complicated questions of facts and law are involved and is dependent upon the reading of voluminous oral and documentary evidence, has been considered by the supreme court and it has been held that this should not be a ground for throwing away the complaint because the consumer forums at the district level are headed by persons who have been District Judges, at the State Commission by High Court Judges and at the national level by Supreme Court Judge/High Court Judges having vast experience at their command in adjudication of cases involving much more complicated question of facts and law.”.
In view of the law as pointed out above, we are of the opinion that the Forum has got ample jurisdiction to deal with the instant case ,if it is found that there is deficiency in service involved in the case. That apart, the instant complainant has been fighting for justice in this case since 2014 i.e for long five years. It will be gross injustice, as we think now, to drive out the complainant to a civil court for getting relief. This Forum is well equipped from all respects to entertain this kind of case and to give justice to the people in terms of the object for which the C.P Act has been enacted by the Legislature. In the circumstances, we do hold that the instant case is quite maintainable in law.
Point no.1 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 & 3 :
Now to see whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P bank while allowing withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant. According to the version of the O.P Bank, the signatures on the withdrawal slip were verified by the bank officials and thereafter withdrawal of money was allowed from the account of the complainant. It was not possible for them to detect in naked eye that the signatures appearing on the withdrawal slip were not at all the signatures of the instant complainant. So , to them, there is no deficiency in service on their part and ,therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief or reliefs ,prayed for.
A heavy duty is cast upon the bank. The duty is to ensure safety and security of the money deposited in the bank by its customers. Any kind of laxity in the maintenance of such duty will inevitably result in huge loss to the customers. The Bank employees have, therefore, to be much more careful and cautious while making any kind of transaction, especially while siphoning off money from the account of any customer. Any casual and cavalier approach should be avoided by the bank employees while allowing withdrawal of money from the account of the customer. Adoption of such casual and cavalier approach is nothing but dereliction of duty and in that case, the Bank will be held liable for deficiency in service. Bank’s version that it is not possible for anyone to detect the difference between the disputed signature and the specimen signature ,kept in the record, is of no avail and such logic of the bank can never be accepted. We would say and say one thing and one thing only that it is the bank who will have to make arrangement for saving the money of the public kept with it . Any kind of infraction in maintenance of such duty is nothing but deficiency in service within the provision of C.P Act, 1986.
Every bank is to collect the original specimen signatures in three numbers from each and every customers while the account is opened in the name of the customer. The specimen signatures are required to be tallied with the signature of withdrawal slip by the bank employee and if the bank employees discharge this duty of them in casual and cavalier manner, the bank will certainly be held guilty of deficiency in service. A bank should demand pass book from the customer whenever there arises any doubt in their mind, because there is a photo of the customer attached to the pass book and the production of the passbook with attached photo will certainly help the Bank to a large extent for identification of the customer. The bank may also ask the customer to produce voter I.D Card or any other ID Card in case of any doubt. Sometimes, it becomes very much impossible to tally signatures with the specimen signature by naked eye. In that case, Bank should have one or two employees well trained in the subject of comparison of hand writing ,because if this is done, the fraud may not be able to make an inroad into the fund maintained by the bank. These are some of the guidelines for ensuring safety and security of the money of the customer ,kept in the bank. But what we want to say is that the safety and security of the money of the customer is to be ensured at any cost, so that the customers are not to shed tears for the loss of their hard earned money.
Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the original specimen signatures of the complainant have not been produced before the Forum by the Bank. The bank has produced a print out copy of the image of its signature. Failure to produce the original specimen signature by the bank goes a long way to prove nothing but two things- either the bank has misplaced the original specimen signatures of the complainant or the bank has totally lost the original specimen signatures of the complainant.
Be that as it may, fact remains that the signatures as appearing on the disputed withdrawal slip were not verified at all with the original specimen signature of the complainant ,kept with the bank. This is gross infraction in the duty of the bank; this is gross fault and imperfection in discharge of duty by the Bank. So, here lies the deficiency in service on the part of the bank authority.
It has been contended on behalf of the O.P Ban k that it was not possible for them to detect the difference between the signatures of disputed withdrawal slip and the image of specimen signature kept by them. We are the last person to accept this version of the O.P Bank. A mere perusal in a naked eye of the image of specimen signature of the complainant and also the signature as appearing on disputed withdrawal slip will reveal and reveal the difference between the signatures. The difference in “Ekar (Bengali)” of ‘Monnab’ between the image signature and the signatures of disputed withdrawal slips can easily be caught by a naked eye ,if mind is properly applied with the sense of responsibility. But this difference failed to appear to the notice of the bank employees or employees who have allowed the withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant. Such casual and cavalier approach is taken by the bank while allowing the withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant which is certainly a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank. The loss or misplacement of the original specimen signatures of the complainant by the bank is also an instance of deficiency in service. Had the bank been careful and cautious in the matter of withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant, the complainant would not have suffered huge monetary loss and also physical and mental harassment.
This case was referred to the hand writing expert and hand writing expert was asked to submit a report before this Forum having compared the specimen signature of the complainant collected in the Forum and the signatures of the disputed withdrawal slips. The report is received by this Forum from the hand writing expert . The report goes thus;
“The writer who wrote the specimen signature marked S/1 to S10 did not write the dispute signatures marked as Q/1 to Q4”. So, it is found that the complainant did not withdraw money from his account and it stands established that someone fraudulently withdrew the money from the account of the complainant ,having taken the opportunity of laxity of the bank employees in discharge of their duty.
So, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.10,000/- .
The O.Ps, who shall remain jointly and severally liable for payment to the complainant, are directed to credit Rs.28000/- to the account of the complainant with interest @4% p.a from 26.8.2013 till full realization thereof within a period of one month of this order.
They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment within a period of one month of this order, failing which the compensation amount and the cost amount will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to deliver a copy of the judgment free of cost to the parties concerned.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
