DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:211 of 2010] Date of Institution : 09.04.2010 Date of Decision : 16.03.2012 -------------------------------------- Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi resident of House No.127, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh. ….Complainant. (VERSUS) H.D.F.C. Bank Limited through its Branch Manager, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. ….Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT [1] Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed:- i) To refund a sum of Rs.28,000/- wrongly encashed due to negligence of OP; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation. [2] The relevant facts necessary to appreciate the points involved in this complaint are as under: - The complainant is a Senior Citizen and is practicing as an Advocate. He has his residence-cum-office at House No.127, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh. He is also having Saving as well as Current Account bearing No.0351500000542 and 2132100000043 respectively in HDFC Bank. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that he had employed Ms. Harpreet Kaur as Computer Operator-cum-Accounts Clerk. In the ordinary course of his business and as a matter of convenience, the complainant used keep his cheque books as well as cheque books of his wife in the office. In the month of April 2008, he found that some amount was withdrawn from his account under his signatures. However, according to the complainant, he did not issue the said cheques. So, he made enquiries and came to know that Ms. Harpreet Kaur had forged his signatures on those cheques and withdrew the amount. The enquiries revealed that Ms. Harpreet Kaur had stolen 33 cheques as per the details given in Para 5 of the complaint. Out of the said stolen cheques, she utilized four cheques and withdrew the following amounts from the OP Bank: - Sr. No. | Name of the Bank & A/c No. | Cheque No. | Amount withdrawn | Date | 1. | HDFC Bank, 35B, Chandigarh, SB A/c No.00351500000542 of R.P. Bedi-complainant. | 015336 | Rs.14,000/- | 16.04.2008 | 2. | -do- | 958142 | Rs.4,000/- | 01.02.2008 | 3. | -do- | 958148 | Rs.5,000/- | 12.03.2008 | 4. | -do- | 958149 | Rs.5,000/- | 14.02.2008 |
It has further been pleaded that despite the fact that the complainant had given his specimen signatures at the time of opening the account, the employees of the OP Bank did not compare the signatures on those cheques with his specimen signatures and cleared those cheques despite the fact that there was difference in the signatures. In these circumstances, according to the complainant, clearing of the aforementioned cheques by the OP Bank and debiting of the amounts mentioned above from his account, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank. So, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. [3] In the written statement filed by OP, it has been pleaded that the cheques in question were in the custody of the complainant. He was required to take due care for the protection of the same. According to the OP, the said cheques had been used as per the instructions of the complainant himself. 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 OP Bank took due care and caution while clearing the said cheques. According to the OP Bank, it was never intimated about the loss of the leaves of the cheque nor any instruction to stop the payment was ever given by the complainant. In these circumstances, as per the OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. [4] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. [5] It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has pleaded categorically that Ms. Harpreet Kaur forged his signatures on the cheques bearing No.105336, 958142, 958148 and 958149 and withdrew the amounts as per the details given above. It has been specifically pleaded that these cheques do not bear his 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 OP, 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 OP Bank are neither verified nor supported by any affidavit as the OP 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 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 CWQ-2/A to CW-2/D) do not tally with the standard signatures of the complainant. His report to this effect is Annexure CW-2/J. [8] Faced with this situation, it was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the OP that the report of Sh. Trilochan Joshi (Annexure CW-2/J) 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 OP 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/D) with the specimen signature of the complainant provided by him 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 09.02.2010 (Annexure C-3) for supply of the photocopy of the specimen signature given by him to the OP Bank at the time of opening of the account, so that he could get the same compared with the disputed signatures on the cheques. However, the OP Bank failed to provide the same to the complainant. So, in these circumstances, the argument of OP Bank to the effect that the report of Sh. Trilochan Joshi can not 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 OP has not placed on record the copy of specimen signatures along with 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 him to the Investigating Agency. So, the known comparison of the disputed signatures on the cheques with the specimen signatures given to the Bank has not caused any prejudice to the OP. So, 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 bearing No.105336, 958142, 958148 and 958149 are forged and are not that of the complainant. The employees of the OP 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 OP Bank. [12] In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to OP to: - (i) credit a sum of Rs.28,000/- in the SB A/C No.00351500000542 of the complainant along with the usual rate of interest on Savings Account from the date of respective withdrawals vide cheques bearing No.105336, 958142, 958148 and 958149; (ii) pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing 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 OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.58,000/- i.e. (Rs.28,000 + Rs.30,000) along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.09.04.2010 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. 16th March, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.211 of 2010 Present: None. --- Arguments were heard on 12.03.2012. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned to the record room. Announced. 16.03.2012. (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
