DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                   Consumer Complaint No. 1458 of 2020

                                                Date of institution:  17.08.2020

                                                  Date of Decision: 18.01.2021

Shiv Parsad son of Surya Baksh, PUDA Bhawan, Division No.1, Phase-8, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Axis Bank Limited, SCF 113-114, Phase-7, Mohali through its Branch Manager.

2.     Axis Bank Limited, Axis House, C-2, Wadia International Center, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai through its Managing Director.

3.     Surjit Mann, resident of House No.109, Gulmohar Complex, Kharar, Mohali.

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Shri Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

Present:    Shri Jagdish Chand Verma, cl. For the complainant.

                OPs Ex-parte.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that the CC is working as a Gardener (Mali) –cum- Caretaker with PUDA Mohali at PUDA Bhawan, Division No.2, Phase-8, Mohali. It is alleged that the CC is having a salary-cum- Saving Bank Account No.085010100124720, IFSC Code UTIB0000085 in Axis Bank of OP No.1 and the account is functional since 23.07.2007. It is further alleged that the CC was given  a cheque book of salary-cum-saving bank account which contained 20 leafs from Sr.No.450081 to 450100. It is further averred, that out of these cheques mentioned above, 8 unsigned cheques bearing No.450086 to 450093 were stolen by the son of landlord of the CC i.e. OP No.3 as the CC was residing  in the house of OP No.3 at Top Floor i.e. Mumti of House No.109, Gulmohar Complex, Kharar (Mohali). It is further averred that the CC immediately vacated the house on 10.10.2018. It is further averred that these cheques were stolen from his bag in his absence, which were lying in his room where the CC was staying in the house of OP No.3. It is also alleged that the unsigned and unfilled cheques were encashed from the CC’s bank account, details of which are as under:

                It is further alleged that the signatures of the CC were forged and cheques were filled in and the amounts mentioned above were withdrawn on various dates by OP No.3 without the knowledge and consent of the CC. It is further alleged that photocopies of these cheques were not shared by OP No.1 and 2 with the CC despite his request . It is further averred that the CC came to know about the withdrawal of the amount to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- on different dates as mentioned in above paras and  when the CC went for withdrawal of money from OP No.1. The CC immediately informed OP No.1 that he never signed or filled up  in any of such cheques or gave them to OP No.3 or to even anybody else.  Even on 31.10.2018 the CC gave written complaint to OP No.1 about these unauthorized withdrawals and even questioned as to how money was allowed to be withdrawn by the bank without verification or scrutiny or even without verification of his signatures or without taking any precautions. It is specifically alleged that OP No.3 in connivance with the staff of OP No.1  and 2 fraudulently signed the cheques and withdrew the amounts on different dates from the account of the CC. Even no telephonic message or any call was received by the CC at the time of withdrawal of money. The CC has specifically alleged that due to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2  and in connivance of their staff, OP No.3 could withdrew the amount from the account of the poor CC on several occasions and made him to suffer a loss of Rs.5,50,000/-. It is further averred that one cheque bearing No.450091 dated 03.09.2018 of Rs.50,000/- having forged signatures of the CC was cleared by the bank which further proves  the deficiency in service, connivance of the bank and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and 2. It is alleged that OP No.1 and 2 were aware that the CC is absolutely an  illiterate man and could hardly sign with difficulty. It was incumbent upon the OP No.1 and 2 to atleast verify his signatures or could have taken more precautions while clearing the cheques to OP No.3, who was regularly withdrawing the amounts in connivance with staff of OP No.1 and 2. It is further averred that the CC followed up the matter with the bank and with the SSP, Mohali, but nothing is being done.

                Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought the following reliefs:

        (a)    that OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the dates of withdrawal till actual payment.

        (b)    to pay to the CC Rs.2,00,000/- towards harassment, mental pain and agony and also pay him Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation cost.

                Complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified and is also supported by an affidavit.

2.             The OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte and were proceeded against ex-parte vide  our orders dated 12.10.2020 of this Commission.

3.             The CC in support of his complaint has submitted documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.

4.             Since the OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte and have not come forward to contest the claim of the CC, in such a situation, we are of the view that the CC who has already led enough cogent and reliable evidence, is able to prove his allegations against the OPs. It is proved on the file that the CC is a very poor person and is working as a Gardener in PUDA, Mohali. It is also proved on file that the CC was earlier living in the house of OP No.3 and was given a cheque book by OP No.1 and 2 with whom he was maintaining bank account bearing No.085010100124720, IFSC Code UTIB0000085 for his salary etc . It is also proved on file that on different dates i.e. from 16.08.2018 to 11.09.2018 OP No.3 had withdrawn a total amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the account of the CC without his knowledge.

5.             The CC has specifically alleged that this amount was withdrawn by OP No.3 in connivance with OP No.1 and 2. It is specifically alleged by the CC that since it was very much in the knowledge of OP No.1 and 2 that the CC is an illiterate person and barely could sign  and that too with diffiucluty and it was very easy for anybody to get his signatures copied , in such a situation it was the duty of OP No.1 and 2 to be atleast more careful and particular, while allowing the withdrawal of money to a third person who was unknown in the bank. We feel, that it was incumbent upon OP No.1 and 2 to be more alert where a third person is withdrawing the money of a poor and illiterate customer, like CC. We feel, that withdrawal of money by OP No.3 on different dates within a short span of less than one month is not possible without the connivance of the officials of OP No.1 and 2. We feel, that Manager of OP No.1 and 2 must have connived with OP No.3 who is son of an influential officer, in whose house the poor CC was staying. This fact is brought to our knowledge during the arguments by the Advocate for the CC. We feel, that OP No.1 and 2 simply cannot absolve from their liability.  The bank  definitely is the custodian of money of the poor customers and it is the duty of the bank to ensure that money is not misappropriated or goes in the wrong hands. It is definitely a breach of trust between the consumer and the bank.

6.             It is writ large on the file that OP No.3 used the stolen cheques issued by OP No.1 and 2 and filled up the cheques, forged the signatures of the poor CC and misused the same for withdrawal of amount of Rs.5,50,000/- within a short span of less than one month on different dates. It was also the duty of the bank to tally the specimen signatures of the poor CC from the account opening form and on the cheques for withdrawal of money on different dates carefully specifically in such a situation where the customer was absolutely illiterate and a poor person like CC, whose total life savings were with the bank .

7.             We, also feel that as and when the CC informed the OP No.1 and 2 about misappropriation of his money, which was in the custody of OP No.1 and 2, it was the duty of OP No.1 and 2 to atleast conduct an inquiry or  have sought the help of police or register a criminal case against OP No.3. It is also broguht to our knowledge during arguments that O.P No.3 is a son of a big officer and an addict .  It is highly regretable that OP No.1 has even failed to acknowledge the complaint of the poor CC.

8.             The CC has annexed Ex.C-2, which are photocopies of cheques to prove that the money was withdrawn by OP No.3 on different dates by forging the “simple signatures” of the CC. We feel, that there was no occasion for this poor CC to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission if something had not happened with him. There is nothing on record that the CC had any grouse either against OP No.1 and 2 or against OP No.3, prior to this incident. Moreover, the OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte and have not come forward to contest the claim of this poor person. We, also feel that OP No.1 and 2 cannot escape from their liability in any manner. We have also applied our mind and have seen the signatures of the CC on the vakalatnama as well as on the complaint. We feel, that it is very easy for anyone to copy signatures of this poor illiterate CC. We feel in  such a situation the bank should have been more careful, while allowing withdrawal of money through cheques by a third person. Therefore, we feel that the CC is successful in proving deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2.

9.             Accordingly the present complaint is allowed.  We order OP No.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand only)  to the CC alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the dates of withdrawal till actual payment.  We further order OP No.1 and 2 to pay a consolidated compensation amount of  Rs.1,00,000/-  (Rs. One Lakh only),  for showing carelessness, lack of duty and negligence on their part.  Such exemplary compensation is awarded to warn such bank officials who have no respect for the poor consumers.  The bank shall recover compensation amount from the salary of concerned Branch Manager who was posted at that time in OP No.1. Free certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record in accordance with rules.

Announced

January 18, 2021

                                        (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

                                                (Kanwaljeet Singh)

Member