Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/450/2014

Bank Of Baroda Through Senior Branch Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Academic Wing India Asthma Care Society Through the Secretary Dr. Jaswant Goyal - Opp.Party(s)

Rajendra Salecha

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 450/2014

 

Bank of Baroda through Sr.Br.Manager, B-5 Shree Tower II, Central Spine, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Academic Wing, Indian Asthma Care Society through Secretary, Dr.Jaswant Goyal R-3, Sector 6, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 24.02.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

 

Mr.Rajendra Salecha counsel for the appellant

MrShailendra Goswami counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

 

2

 

DCF Jaipur Fourth Jaipur dated 3.4.2014 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the appellant Academic Wing Indian Asthma Care Society maintains a bank account no. 29200100008535 with the appellant bank. The complainant filed a complaiant before the DCF stating that Shrikant Bunkar a Ivth class employee of the complainant society fraudulantly stole three cheques from the cheque book of the society and an amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- was withdrawn by him unauthorizely. The complainant states that the bank was negligent in passing the cheques as the signatures of the authorised person and the stamp differed. The bank filed its written statement submiting that Shrikant Bunkar has been arrested by the police and a sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- has been recovered from him. They also states that the bank was not informed of the theft of cheques and the bank did not act malafidely and cheques were passed as per routine. The learned DCF after considering the evidence of both sides came to the conclusion that the stamp of the society which was affixed on the stolen cheques was different and the signatures were also different which was further confirmed by a report of FSL. It found bank guilty of deficiency of service and ordered the bank to re-pay the balance amount alongwith interest of 9% p.a.

3

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that a criminal complaint was filed by the society and the disputed signatures were sent to FSL. The report of the FSL is still pending consideration with the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court has not come to the conclusion that these cheques had forged signatures. He further submits that the bank was not given opportunity to contradict the FSL report. He has also referred to s. 31 of the Negotiable Instrumentation Act stating that the bank had liability to honour the said cheques and make payment if the cheque was otherwise in order. He also argued that the person who is stated to have withdrawn the amount was an employee of the complainant society and was frequently coming to the bank and known to bank employees and concerned bank officers had no occasion to doubt that the cheques were forged since he regularly came for transacting the banking business of the society.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the above argument. He has drawn our attention to the judgment of the learned DCF in which it was held that both the stamp and the signatures differed with the specimen available with the bank. He also argued that Srikant Bunkar who was an employee of the society visited the bank for society business but it does not mean that bank had no responsibility to verify the signatures on the cheques. He further

4

 

argued that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in R.P. No: 527/1994 of the Hon'ble National Commission cannot be applied here as in every case the facts are different and every question of negligence has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.

 

We have heard the arguments of both counsels. We are of the opinion that Srikant Bunkar withdrew this amount in collusion with the bank officials. The stamp which were affixed on the stolen cheques were different from the specimen stamp available with the bank. The specimen stamp is “Academic Wing Indian Asthma Care Society” while the stamp which was affixed on the cheques was “ A unit of Academic Wing Indian Asthma Care Society”. Thus, the word “ A unit” were added before the original stamp and then signatures of Jaswant Goyal was also forged which was prima facie proved from the FSL report. The FSL report was filed before the learned DCF and the appellant had opportunity of contradiciting this report. Similarly there is no force in the argument that since Srikant Bunkar frequented the bank, therefore the cheques were passed by the bank bonafidely. It is the duty of the bank to verify the signatures and stamp with the specimen which was available with the bank. In case of cash withdrawal of heavy amounts, should have alarmed the bank officers and it was their duty to further confirm whether the cheques

5

 

were genuine or forged. The bank officers failed in their duties. This is apparently a grave deficiency on the part of the bank to make payment on forged signatures when the stamp on the cheques were different from specimen stamp. We also do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the matter was still pending in the criminal court and the learned DCF could not have arrived at a conclusion. We feel that both proceedings are independent of each other. The learned DCF has to see if any deficiency has been proved in the facts stated before it. The criminal liability of the bank employees or the accused is different from deficiency of service committed by the bank. Thus, we do not want to interfere with the order of the learned DCF and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

 

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dimissed.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm