DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No.210 of 2010]

Indira Bedi aged 71 years, w/o Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, r/o House No.127, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh (since deceased) through her legal heirs/ representatives :-

1.                 Ram Parkash Bedi aged 76 years s/o late Sh. P.S. Bedi r/o House No.127, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

2.                 Jaideep Bedi, aged 45 years s/o Sh. Ram Parkash Bedi, r/o House No.127, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

3.                 Ramandeep Bedi, aged 42 years s/o Sh. Ram Parkash Bedi, r/o House No.127, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

4.                 Nisha Bakshi, aged 44 years w/o Sh. A.K. Bakshi, r/o House No.127, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainants.

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv. for the complainants

                        Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. proxy for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Initially Smt. Indira Bedi filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :

                             “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the complaint may kindly be allowed and the OP may kindly be directed to indemnify and pay the complainant a sum of Rs.76,000/- wrongly encashed by Ms. Harpreet Kaur and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-, in view of the facts stated above in the interest of justice”

                    In brief, the case of the complainant is that she was maintaining SB A/c No.00351000789538 with the opposite party-Bank.  It has been pleaded that her husband, who is a practising Advocate, had employed Ms. Harpreet Kaur as Computer Operator-cum-Accounts Clerk. In the month of April 2008, she found that some amount was withdrawn from her account under her signatures. However, according to the complainant, she did not issue the said cheques. So, she made enquiries and came to know that Ms. Harpreet Kaur had forged her signatures on those cheques and withdrew the amount. The enquiries revealed that Ms. Harpreet Kaur had stolen many cheques, belonging to the complainant and her husband, as per details given in Para 5 of the complaint. Out of the said stolen cheques, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, utilized the following cheques and withdrew total amount of Rs.76,000/- from the Opposite Party-Bank as per the following details : -

          It has further been pleaded that despite the fact that the complainant had given her specimen signatures, at the time of opening the account, the employees of the Opposite Party-Bank did not compare the signatures on those cheques with her specimen signatures and cleared the same though there was difference in the signatures. In these circumstances, according to the complainant, clearing of the aforementioned cheques by the Opposite Party-Bank and debiting of the amounts, mentioned above, from her account, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party-Bank. So, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

2.                                         In the written statement filed by the Opposite Party-Bank, it has been pleaded that the cheques in question were in the custody of the complainant and that she was required to take due care for the protection of the same. According to the Opposite Party, the said cheques had been used as per the instructions of the complainant herself. It has been denied that the signatures on the said cheques were forged or were not that of the complainant. It is asserted that the signatures on the cheques were similar to the signatures of the complainant and the Opposite Party-Bank took due care and caution while clearing the said cheques. According to the Opposite Party-Bank, it was never intimated about the loss of the leaves of the cheque nor any instructions to stop the payment were ever given by the complainant. In these circumstances, as per the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 

3.                                         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

4.                                         During the pendency of the present complaint, Smt. Indira Bedi died on 19.11.2011.  Subsequently, her legal heirs/representatives moved an application for being impleaded as complainants in her place.  The said application was allowed vide order dated 30.5.2012 upon the no objection given by the Counsel for the Opposite party. 

5.                                         It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has categorically pleaded that Ms. Harpreet Kaur forged her signatures on some cheques and withdrew the amounts as per the details given above. It has been specifically pleaded that these cheques do not bear her signatures and the said signatures were forged by Ms. Harpreet Kaur against whom a criminal case is pending.

6.                                         On the other hand, in the reply filed by the Opposite party, it has been pleaded that the signatures on the cheques were compared with the specimen signatures and due care and caution was taken while processing the said cheques. It is pertinent to mention here that the averments made by the Opposite Party-Bank are neither verified nor supported by any affidavit as the Opposite Party has not filed any affidavit in support of its pleadings. However, the averments made in the complaint are supported by the affidavit of the complainant.

7.                                         Furthermore, Sh. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, who appeared as CW-2 has stated categorically (vide his separate statement recorded on 03.10.2011) before this Forum that he examined the disputed signatures of the complainant on the cheques and compared them with the standard signatures of the complainant obtained by the police and found that the disputed signatures on the cheques (Annexures CW-2/A to CW-2/K) do not tally with the standard signatures of the complainant. His report to this effect is Annexure CW-2/N.

8.                                         Faced with this situation, it was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party that the report of Sh. Trilochan Joshi (Annexure CW-2/N) cannot be relied upon as the said handwriting expert has not compared the signatures on the cheques with the specimen signatures given by the complainant to the Bank. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the cross examination of Sh. Trilochan Joshi. In his cross-examination, Sh. Trilochan Joshi has admitted that he did not compare the disputed signatures on the cheques (Annexures CW-2/A to CW-2/K) with the specimen signature of the complainant provided by her to the OP bank at the time of opening the account. Rather, he has compared those signatures with the specimen signatures of the complainant given to the Investigating Agency.

9.                                         It is pertinent to mention here that earlier, the complainant had moved an application dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure C-3) for supply of the photocopy of the specimen signature given by her to the Opposite bank at the time of opening of the account, so that she could get the same compared with the disputed signatures on the cheques. However, the opposite party/Bank failed to provide the same to the complainant.  So, in these circumstances, the argument of Opposite Party-Bank to the effect that the report of Sh. Trilochan Joshi cannot be accepted as he did not compare the disputed signatures on the cheques with the specimen signatures, given in the Bank, cannot be accepted. Further, the Opposite Party has not placed on record the copy of specimen signatures alongwith the record in order to enable this Forum to compare the disputed signatures on the cheques with the specimen signatures given to it at the time of opening the account.

10.                                     Even otherwise also, the signatures on the disputed cheques have been compared with the standard signatures of the complainant, which were taken by the Investigating Agency and the signatures on the cheques do not tally with the said standard signatures. There is nothing on record to show that there is significant difference between the specimen signatures given by the complainant to the Bank and the standard signatures given by her to the Investigating Agency. So, the non comparison of the disputed signatures on the cheques with the specimen signatures given to the Bank has not caused any prejudice to the Opposite Party. Hence, even if the said signatures were not compared with the specimen signatures, it would not affect the merit of this case.

11.                       In these circumstances, from the evidence on record, it has been duly proved that the signatures on the cheques, mentioned above, are forged and are not that of the complainant. The employees of the Opposite Party-Bank have failed to compare the signatures properly resulting into withdrawal of amount from the account of the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Bank.

12.                       In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to Opposite Party-Bank to: -

(i)      credit a sum of Rs.76,000/- in the SB A/C No. 00351000789538 of the complainant alongwith the usual rate of interest on Savings Account from the date of respective withdrawals vide cheques mentioned above.

 (ii)    pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing her mental agony and harassment;

(iii)    pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation;

13.                       This order be complied with by Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay the amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till actual payment, besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

14.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.7.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER