Complainant/petitioner filed the complaint alleging that he had issued a cheque for self for Rs.100/- and the said cheque was thereafter manipulated for Rs.96,700/- and the amount was debited from the account. It was alleged that the respondent-Bank had allowed the cheque to be encashed despite RBI guideline to the effect that cheques over Rs.50,000/- should not be encashed without verifying the identity of the person who gets it encashed.

District Forum dismissed the complaint, against which petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed with cost of Rs.500/-. State Commission has come to the conclusion that the instructions relied by the petitioner relate to the money laundering rules and would not be applicable to the petitioner’s case.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. RBI guidelines provide as under: -

“……further if a bank has reason to believe that a customer is intentionally structuring a transaction into a series of transactions below the threshold of Rs.50,000/- the bank should verify identity and address of the customer and also consider filing a suspicious transaction report (STR) to FIU-IND.”

          Guidelines circulated by the RBI are in respect of money laundering transaction. There is nothing in the Anti Money Laundering (AML) guidelines that the bank must collect identity proof of each and every customer, and each and every transaction of above Rs.50,000/- in the day to day banking transaction.

          The plea raised by the petitioner on the basis of AML guidelines of the RBI is not applicable in the present case. AML guidelines of the RBI are applicable in the specific accounts only, where huge cash/self/bear cheque transactions are carried out frequently and if there is some doubt of money laundering in the specific account.

          Petitioner has failed to prove that the cheque which he has issued for Rs.100/- was manipulated to Rs.96,700/-. Had it been so, then the cheque must have carried alterations in the amount both in figures and words.

          As per written statement filed by the respondent the cheque in question did not reveal that there was any alteration either in figures or words. It was a self cheque. In the absence of any proof that the petitioner has issued a cheque for Rs.100/- which was manipulated to Rs.96,700/-/-, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of the respondent in rendering service by encashing the cheque of Rs.96,700/-.

Dismissed.

However, the cost of Rs.5000/- imposed on the petitioner is set aside. We have set aside the order regarding the cost without issuing notice to the respondent to avoid further litigation. 

In case the respondent is aggrieved by the order setting aside the direction regarding cost, then he may move an application seeking recall of this order.