Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Opposite Party is the Bank of Rajasthan, having its branch office at Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The Complainant had maintained a current account with the Opposite Party – Bank; and according to the Complainant on 13/10/2006, the credit balance in his account was in sum of Rs.75,000/-. On 20/10/2006, the Complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party – Bank; to stop the payment against cheque bearing No.230665, as also, gave intimation to stop payment against three cheques, on the ground that those cheques were stolen from his house. [2] It is the case of the Complainant that despite his communication, the three cheques were realized/cleared and the officers of the Opposite Party – Bank; were negligent in passing those cheques. A total amount in sum of Rs.75,000/- was withdrawn under those 03 cheques. The Complainant served a notice through an advocate and asked the Opposite Party – Bank; to credit the amount and the Opposite Party – Bank; gave reply on 28/3/2007 to the effect that one Mr. Monu had withdrawn the amount under those cheques. According to the Complainant, Mr. Monu was never instructed by him to withdraw the amount. Making allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank; the Complainant filed this complaint seeking direction as against the Opposite Party – Bank; to credit an amount in sum of Rs.75,000/- into his current bank account, as also, to pay compensation in sum of Rs.20,000/-. [3] Pursuant to the notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party – Bank; appeared and contested the complaint by filing its written version of defence and took stand that Mr. Monu was introduced to the officers of the Opposite Party – Bank; by the Complainant himself and the xerox copy of photograph of Mr. Monu was also furnished. Thereafter, from time to time, Mr. Monu had withdrawn amounts on behalf of the Complainant’s firm, by name – M/s. Rizwan Roadlines. On 13/10/2006, when the Complainant visited the Opposite Party – Bank; he was informed about withdrawals by Mr. Monu. [4] It is further case of the Complainant that on 19/10/2006, when again Mr. Monu came to the Opposite Party – Bank; with a cheque to withdraw the amount, the Complainant was called to the Opposite Party – Bank; by making a telephone call and the Complainant identified Mr. Monu, as his relation being his sister’s son, but explained that he had no grievance against Mr. Monu. On that basis, Mr. Monu was let off. The Opposite Party – Bank; has justified its action to pass three cheques for total amount in sum of Rs.75,000/-. The Opposite Party – Bank; also referred to reply to the Complainant’s notice in which all these facts were explained to the Complainant. The Opposite Party – Bank; thus, denied the allegations of deficiency in service on its part. [5] Parties to the complaint proceeding have filed their respective affidavits of evidence, copies of relevant documents as well as written notes of arguments. The Opposite Party – Bank; has produced on the record three original cheques for an amount in sum of Rs.25,000/- each, total sum of Rs.75,000/-. [6] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents as well as written notes of arguments filed by the parties, as also, closely scrutinized the three original cheques in question. [7] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Party – Bank; is guilty of deficiency in service? | NO | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to any direction as against the Opposite Party – Bank? | NO | 3. | What order? | The complaint stands dismissed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [8] The Complainant’s letter to stop the payments of these three cheques does not bear a date, but the acknowledgement bearing seal of the Opposite Party – Bank; bears the date – 20/10/2006. Now, turning to the three cheques, we find that the first cheque was bearing No.230673 and it was dated 5/10/2006, while the second cheque was bearing No.230678 and it was dated 13/9/2006 and the third cheque was bearing No.230677 and it was dated 13/10/2006. All these three cheques were drawn for an amount in sum of Rs.25,000/- each. These cheques were honoured/realized/cleared by the Opposite Party – Bank; on their respective dates across the counter. All these three cheques were payable to the bearer, since the word – ‘Self’, was mentioned in those cheques. On all these three cheques, seal of the Complainant’s firm, by name – ‘M/s. Rizwan Roadlines’, appear. No doubt, on the first cheque, there is an over-writing to score the word – ‘only’, but that was also counter-signed by the Complainant. There was no overwriting or any suspicious writing on the other two cheques. We have compared the signatures of the drawer on all these three cheques with the admitted signatures of the Complainant on the complaint and affidavit and we find that there is striking similarity in those signatures. The Opposite Party – Bank; had no reason to suspect about the transaction. [9] According to the Opposite Party – Bank; Mr. Monu was introduced to the officers of the Opposite Party – Bank; by the Complainant himself and the Opposite Party – Bank; has produced on the record a photograph of Mr. Monu. On 1/3/2007, the Complainant had served a notice to the Opposite Party – Bank; making allegations of negligence. The Opposite Party – Bank; replied that notice vide its reply dtd.28/3/2007 and the reply contains all the prominent facts, which appear in the written version of defence, as filed by the Opposite Party – Bank. This shows that even before filing of present complaint by the Complainant, the Opposite Party – Bank; had made it clear to the Complainant that Mr. Monu, being his relation, was introduced to the officers of the Opposite Party – Bank; by the Complainant himself and the Complainant had not suggested any action against Mr. Monu. [10] It appears that on the basis of application-cum-complaint filed by the Complainant with the Saki Naka Police Station, an enquiry was held by the concerned authorities of said police station. The Opposite Party – Bank; alongwith its written notes of arguments has produced on the record, at Exhibit-C, a copy of the report tendered by Police Sub-Inspector, Saki Naka Police Station; in which it was reported that the Complainant was not extending his co-operation to the investigating agency. Exhibit-D of the written notes of arguments filed by the Opposite Party – Bank; there is a copy of letter addressed to the Opposite Party – Bank; written by Police Sub-Inspector, Saki Naka Police Station; by which it was informed to the Opposite Party – Bank; that the enquiry was closed because the Complainant had refused to give complaint against Mr. Monu, being his sister’s son. At Exhibit-B, there is a copy of statement of the Complainant recorded by Saki Naka Police Station and that statement exposes the Complainant thoroughly. While making that statement, the Complainant admitted that on 19/10/2006, he received a telephone call from the Opposite Party – Bank; that the person who had withdrawn the amount under three cheques has come with another cheque and the Manager of the Opposite Party – Bank; had called the Complainant to the Opposite Party – Bank. Statement proceeds that on going there, the Complainant found Mr. Monu at the Opposite Party – Bank. On that day i.e. 19/10/2006, the Complainant himself had sent Mr. Monu to the Opposite Party – Bank; with a cheque for an amount in sum of Rs.5,000/-. That cheque was bearing No.230665. On the next day i.e. 20/10/2006, the Complainant issued a letter to the Opposite Party – Bank; to stop the payment of cheque bearing No.230665. This shows that all the while and particularly, during that period, Mr. Monu was residing with the Complainant, being his relation and Mr. Monu used to operate the Complainant’s account. Still then, the Complainant has shown an audacity to make allegations against the officers of the Opposite Party – Bank; of negligence & deficiency in service. Be it noted that the Opposite Party – Bank; has filed a complaint against the Complainant herein and Mr. Monu, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai; and a copy of that complaint is produced on the record by the Opposite Party – Bank. Be it further noted that the Complainant never filed a complaint against Mr. Monu and this conduct on the part of the Complainant supports the contention of the Opposite Party – Bank; that the Complainant is shielding Mr. Monu and making allegations against officers of the Opposite Party – Bank. [11] In view of the above, we find that the Complainant has not only failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank; but he has filed a frivolous & vexatious complaint against the Opposite Party – Bank; in his attempt to recover an amount in sum of Rs.75,000/-, perhaps not recovered from Mr. Monu. With this, we proceed to pass the order as below:- ORDER The complaint stands dismissed. However, the Complainant is hereby directed to pay costs in sum of Rs.5,000/- under Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and the said amount shall be deposited with this Forum under the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Complainant shall comply with this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Registrar of this Forum is hereby directed to take appropriate action against the Complainant to execute this order. The original three cheques produced on the record by the Opposite Party – Bank; shall be returned to the Opposite Party – Bank; after a period of eight weeks from the date of this order on retaining xerox copies thereof. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | |
