Order No.  15  dt.  30/10/2018

        This case is filed u/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 by the complainant Sri Pradip Kumar Chakraborty son of Late Balaram Chakraborty alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.- Allahabad Bank.  

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a retired Central Government employee as well as a senior citizen and he opened an account being no. 50193906623 with the O.P.- Allahabad Bank for his monthly pension purpose. It is stated in the petition of complaint that on 26^th April, 2017 one Palash Sarkar who claimed to be an agent of Bandhan Bank visited the house of the complainant with a request to open a savings bank account with them. It is further stated in the petition of complaint that during discussion the complainant left his room to answer nature’s call keeping his cheque book on the table and after returning he issued a cheque bearing no. 116597 for opening a new savings account with Bandhan Bank. It is stated by the complainant that on 4^th May,2017 he had been at O.P. Bank to update his pass book and at that time he came to know that a cheque being no.116596 has been cleared debiting Rs.98,500/- on 02/05/2017 with remark “Paid to self (Gen)”. The complainant verbally informed the said matter to the person in charge of savings bank and who on pursuant to request made by the complainant intimated him that the said cheque has been issued in the name of one Atry Acharjee. It is further stated by the complainant that there after he lodge an F.I.R. before Baranagar Police Station against the said Palash Sarkar and subsequently he informed the said fact to the O.P. No.-1 vide letter dated 22/05/2017 and O.P. No.-2 Zonal Head Office of Allahabad Bank but O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 did nothing to that effect. Finding no wlay the complainant moved to the banking ombudsman to get relief but all went in vain. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the O.P. Bank paid the said amount from his pension account without verifying his signature with the specimen signature of him and without informing him to send alert message before clearance which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P.s to pay the amount of Rs.98,500/- alongwith compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.

            O.P.s have contested this case by filing written version denying and disputing all the material allegation made against them stating that the case is suffering from non-joinder of necessary parties and also stating that on 02/05/2017 cheque no.116596 has been deposited by one Atry Acharjee for withdrawal of Rs.98,500/- with the photocopy of PAN and signature of the complainant which was honored by them as they were in duty bound to do so. O.P.s have also stated that on 16/05/2017 S.I. of Baranagar P.S. served notice to seize the cheque bearing no.116596 with the PAN of Atry Acharjee from where they came to know about the allegation of theft and forgery of the said cheque. O.P.s have further stated that the complainant has sent them Advocate’s letter dated 22/05/2017 stating that the said cheque has been stolen by one Palash Sarkar on 26/04/2017 and was misappropriated by him. O.P. sent reply to the letter but it has not been received by or on behalf of the complainant moreover the complainant did not inform them to stop payment of such stolen leaf of the cheque book between the occurrence of theft and encashment of the same and the said fact was informed to the O.P. after an expiry of 20 days of encashment of the cheque in question which tantamount to malafide intention of the complainant. Accordingly, the O.P.s have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost .

            In support of the case of the complainant and defense of the O.ps. both parties adduced evidence.

            Points for determination:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the O.P.s have deficiency in providing service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get  the reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.

            Admittedly the complainant is one of the joint holders of savings account being no.50193906623 under the O.P. Bank. The complainant has stated that one Palash Sarkar had stolen a cheque leaf from his cheque book which misappropriated and thereby an amount of Rs.98,500/- had been debited from the said account as the O.P. Bank honoured the cheque. The complainant came to know that the same cheque was encashed by one Atry Acharjee. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that had the bank authorities verified his specimen signature with the signature as put on the cheque being no.116596 it would have been evident that the signature put on the cheque being no. 116596 was not of him. On the otherhand it is specific defense of the O.P.s that in overleaf of every cheque book it is informed “this book must be kept in security under lock and key. Constituents are advised to periodically verify whether all unused forms are in fact and promptly intimate to the bank the loss, if any  of the unused cheque” and moreover they were not been informed about the said fact of theft and encashment of the cheque. However, it is stated by the complainant that he lodged an F.I.R. with Baranagar P.S. regarding the theft of the cheque leaf. In this respect the O.P.s have submitted that S.I. of Baranagar P.S. has seized the cheque being no. 116596 with the PAN of Atry Acharjee and further submitted that said Atry Acharjee has already been arrested in this connection.      

            It is, however, evident that presence of said Palash Sarkar and the said Atry Acharjee was indispensible for proper adjudication of the instant case but the complainant did not implead them as party to the instant case. Thus the instant complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties.

            Further, it is evident that a criminal case being no.315/17 has been initiated by the Baranagar P.S. in respect of the self same matter prior to filing in the instant consumer complaint. Therefore, if this Forum adjudicates the same it will create multiplicity of Judgments which is contrary to the Provision of Law.

            In such view of matter we are of opinion that the instant case is not maintainable before this Forum.

            Since the case is not maintainable in its present form there is no scope to enter into the merit of the case.

            All points are disposed of accordingly.

            In the result the complainant case does not succeed.    

            Hence, it is ,

                        Ordered

            That the CC No. 294/2017 is hereby dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.