PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party as it issued the duplicate passbook to the third person without the knowledge of the Complainant who is the account holder of the Opposite Party and deducted the charges for issuing such duplicate passbook.
2) The facts of this complaint as alleged by the Complainant are that the Complainant holds two accounts in the Opposite Party branch viz; S.B. A/c.No.001710100054005 and A/c. No.001710100041964. the later being held with his late mother.
3) The perusal of the entries in the pass book reveals that on 05/04/08 Rs.55/- were debited for issuing the duplicate pass books.
4) During his cross-examination in Family Court, on 05/06/08 he came to know that a duplicate original pass book of A/c.No.001710100054005 was shown to him and submitted in Family Court by the other party in the family dispute case.
5) On 18/03/09, a duplicate pass book of A/c.No.001710100041964 was submitted in family litigation. On this day only he made application for certified copies of the application to Opposite Party for obtaining duplicate pass books issued on 05/04/08 and 23/04/08. He then obtained the copies of these applications and found that the signature on application dtd.05/04/08 did not tally with his own signature on the record of the Opposite Party still duplicate pass books were issued to the third person. Application, dtd.05/04/08 had 4 different signatures and these signatures were made on the stationary of the Opposite Party. He brought this fact to the notice of the manager of the Opposite Party Shri. P.F. Patil. At the same time he also made an application requesting the Opposite Party to verify his signature on this application dtd.18/03/09 with that on record. Manager Mr.P.F. Patil admitted that the signature on application dtd.05/04/08 and signature on their record did not tally.
6) Therefore, he issued a notice to the Opposite Party through his advocate on 22/04/09 for issuing duplicate pass book of his above accounts to the person who is not authorized by him. He also filed the complaint with the concerned police station in this respect on 23/04/09.
7) The Opposite Party replied vide its letter dtd.14/05/09 that it delivered the duplicate pass book on 05/04/08 to the Complainant’s authorized person as per the request letter apparently signed by the Complainant himself. The Opposite Party has also clarified in this letter that there is no financial loss to the Complainant by withdrawal of any amount from the accounts by forged signatures.
8) The Complainant has also stated that during the cross-examination of his wife in the Family Court she disclosed that her cousin brother was employed with Opposite Party and the duplicate pass books were sent by the Opposite Party bank to her residence and she has not applied for the said duplicate pass books.
9) The Complainant submitted that issuing duplicate pass book for his accounts without his knowledge amounts to deficiency in service. The Complainant has harassed him time and again.
10) The Complainant has finally prayed that, the Opposite Party be directed to refund the Complainant a sum of Rs.50 being the charges for issuing duplicate pass books on 05/04/08. The Complainant also prayed for a compensation of Rs.1 Lac from the Opposite Party for mental & physical torture caused to him and cost of Rs.50,000/-.
11) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents –
i) Certificate form grant medical college dtd.12/07/99.
ii) Duplicate pass books with relevant entries.
iii) Cross-examination of the petitioner as on 05/06/08.
iv) Letters dtd.18/03/09 from the Complainant to Opposite Party.
v) A letter addressed to Opposite Party.
vi) Letter dtd.23/04/08 from the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
vii) Letter dtd.22/04/09 from Complainant’s advocate to the Opposite Party.
viii)Letter dtd.23/04/09 from Complainant to the Sr. Inspector, Palton Road Police Station.
ix) Letter dtd.11/05/09 under R.T.I. Act.
x) Letter dtd.11/05/09 from Adv.Pandit & Pandit addressed to Opposite Party.
xi) Letter dtd.03/06/09 from Opposite Party to the complainant.
xii) Letter dtd.04/06/09 from Adv.Pandit & Pandit addressed to Opposite Party.
xiii)Letter of the Opposite Party from Opposite Party dtd.14/05/09 to the Complainant.
xiv) Letter from Adv.Pandit & Pandit to the Opposite Party, dtd.17/08/09.
xv) Letter dtd.09/09/09 from the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
xvi) Letter dtd.06/10/09 from the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
xvii) Cross-examination oath dtd.10/09/09.
xviii)Letter dtd.22/01/09 from Adv.Pandit & Pandit to the Opposite Party.
12) The complaint was admitted and notice was served on Opposite Party who appeared before this Forum through the Ld.Advocate and submitted its written statement wherein, it admitted that the Complainant is maintaining two Saving Bank Accounts as mentioned in the complaint. Further the Opposite Party has explained that the Complainant is facing a Court Trial initiated by his wife and out of frustration he has made false allegation that the duplicate pass book were issued to his wife on a forged application dtd.05/04/08. The Opposite Party has suggested the Complainant to take the matter for handwriting expert opinion which was turned down by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has stated that, “the signature on impugned application (dtd.05/04/08) is the apparent tenor of specimen signature of the Complainant maintained with the bank (para 5). Opposite Party sated that duplicate pass books were issued at the request of the Complainant only.
13) The Opposite Party has submitted that the Complainant has not suffered any losses of whatsoever nature on account of issue of duplicate pass books to him. Even his wife has stated in her letter dtd.29/05/09 addressed to the Opposite Party that the duplicate pass books of the Complainant’s accounts books were obtained by the Complainant himself who delivered the same to her through his man at her residence. These duplicate pass books were then submitted in the Court in litigation pending before the Hon’ble Family Court between the Complainant and his wife.
14) The Opposite Party has alleged that the Complainant has created a false and baseless issue of forgery of his signature on an application dtd.05/04/08 so that he can creat grounds for obtaining illegal claim against Opposite Party. Therefore, the Opposite Party has stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part.
15) Opposite Party has specifically averred that the signature on the application dtd.05/04/08 is tallying with the signature of the Complainant maintained by the Bank. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service of whatsoever nature on its part and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
16) The Opposite Party has attached the xerox copies of the following documents to its written statement.
i) Letter from one hitiksha Amar Shukla addressed to the Opposite Party (dtd.29/05/09).
ii) Letter dtd.22/10/09 from the Advocate of the Complainant addressed to the Opposite Party.
17) The Complainant submitted his affidavit in reply to the written statement of the Opposite Party and his written argument wherein he reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Similarly Opposite Party submitted its written argument wherein it reiterated the facts mentioned in its written statement. We heard the Ld.Advocates of both the parties perused all the above documents and our findings are as follows -
18) The Complainant has availed the facility of two Saving Bank Accounts maintained with the Opposite Party. The original pass books of these accounts were with the Complainant. However, on 05/04/08 the Opposite Party has issued two duplicate pass books of these accounts as per the request made in the application dtd.05/04/08 (Exh. ‘C’ colly page 32 to the complaint). It is the contention of the Complainant that this letter does not bear his signature. At the same time the Opposite Party’s contention is that it is the Complainant’s signature. We perused this application again and again and compare the signature on this letter with the signatures of the Complainant appearing on the main compliant dtd.06/11/09 filed before this Forum Vakalatnama etc and found that, all the signatures on the above said documents except on letter dtd.05/04/08, are of the same person. However, the signature on the letter dtd.05/04/08 is nowhere similar to the signatures on those of the rest of the documents. The letter dtd.05/04/08 bears 4 different signatures. This fact itself is enough to raise the suspicion in the mind of a prudent banker before issuing the duplicate pass books. The letter also does not bear the name, address etc. It is scanty letter on the strength of which the Opposite Party had issued the duplicate pass books. It is the contention of the Opposite Party that the wife of the Complainant has written a letter stating that the duplicate pass books were obtained by the Complainant himself and sent to her residence. But taking into consideration the fact that there was litigation going on between the Complainant and his wife in a Family Court, under these situation, there is a remote possibility that the Complainant would obtain the duplicate pass books and hand over it to his wife in that case, when the original pass books were with him. Therefore, the above said contention of the Opposite Party that the Complainant himself had obtained the duplicate pass books and the application dtd.05/04/08 bears the signature of the Complainant does not hold water particularly when one can observe the difference between the admitted signatures on the compliant, affidavit, etc. and the signature on the application dtd.05/04/08.
19) The other contention of the Opposite Party is that it is ready to send the disputed signatures to the handwriting expert and the cost of the hand writing expert would be Rs.5,000/- which would be born by the Complainant only. In this respect, in ordinary course of banking business, their officers themselves compare the signatures of customer kept, on their record with the signature on the cheques and other documents of the same customer and complete the transaction without sending the signatures to the hand writing experts in each and every case. In this particular case, there is a clear difference between the signature on the letter dtd.05/04/08 and Complainant’s admitted signaturewhich can be very easily seen upon simple perusal of these signatures. There is no similarity in the said signatures.
20) Therefore, it is clear that, certainly the Opposite Party was not careful while issuing the duplicate pass books and therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party for divulging the information and issuing the duplicate pass books to a person other than the account holder or to the person other than a person properly authorized by the account holder. At the same time, it is also correct that by issuing these said duplicate pass books, the Complainant has not sustained any major financial loss except the charges of Rs.55 towards the issuing of the duplicate pass books. However, when his wife the rival party produced these documents before the Hon’ble Family Court, it must have caused the mental agony to the Complainant. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we pass the following order -
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.306/2009 is partly allowed.
ii The Opposite Party is directed to reverse the entry of Rs.55/-(Rs.Fifty Five) dtd.05/04/08 appearing in
A/c.No.001710100054005.
iii.Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards the
compensation for mental agony caused to the Complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Party.
iv.Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rs.Three Thousand only) to the Complainant towards the cost of
this complaint.
v. Opposite Party is also directed to comply with the above said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of
this order.
vi. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
