DATE OF FILING : 05.05.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 10.07.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 15.01.2016.
Shri Pawan Sharma,
son of late Radheshyam Sharma,
253/9, Netaji Subhas Road,
Howrah 711 101,
alternate 94, Rajballav Saha Lane,
Howrah 711 101. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. Branch Manager,
UCO Bank, Howrah Branch ( UCBA 0000065 ),
552, G.T. Road ( S ), P.S. Howrah,
Howrah – 711101.
2. Chief Manager,
UCO Bank, Howrah Zonal Office,
P.S. Howrah, P 18, Dobson Lane,
Howrah 711 101.
3. General Manager,
Personnel Service Department,
UCO Bank, Head Office, P.S. Hare Street,
10, Biplabi Trailakya Maharaj Sarani,
Kolkata 700 001.
4. Commissioner of Police,
Howrah Police Commissionariate,
28, Nityadhan Mukherjee Road,
Howrah 711 101. ………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application filed by the petitioner, Pawan Sharma, against the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, and three others, praying for a direction upon the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 to credit Rs. 70,500/-, ( Rs. 24,500 + Rs. 46,000/- ) which was allowed to be drained out illegally by the o.p. bank, in favour of the petitioner and to pay Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation for the sufferings and financial loss and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is a consumer of the o.p. no. 1, UCO Bank, Howrah Branch, and o.p. nos. 2 & 3 are the Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Howrah Zonal Office and General Manager, Personal Service Department, UCO Bank Head Office respectively. The case of the petitioner further is that the petitioner was the need of urgent money for his daughter marriage and one Mr. Samrat contacted him over phone presenting himself as an agent of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. and promised to arrange him personal loan of Rs. 2 lakhs with 12% interest. Being allured by the person he handed over four cheque folios bearing nos. 268487 to 268490 of his SBI account and out of four cheques so handed over, in two cheques namely 268487 and 268488 he signed due to inadvertence though he cancelled those cheques.
- On 27,09.2013 he got SMS from the o.p. bank and came to know that Rs. 24,500/- and Rs. 46,000/- debited from his S.B. A/C and after updating the passbook he came to know that those signed cheques were presented before the o.p. no. 1 bank on 25.9.2013 and cash was withdrawn by the miscreants and he realised that Mr. Samrat has encashed the cheques and on 03.10.2013 he lodged F.I.R. before the I/C, Howrah Police Station, alleging fraudulent encashment of those cheques by said Samrat in collusion with the o.p. bank. On 28.9.2013 he wrote a letter to o.p. no. 1 to stop payment of the other two cheques bearing no. 268489 & 268490. He further submitted that from the reverse of those cheques it was transpired that the signatures of the complainant was copied and imitating the original signature and this differ from the original one. The personnel of the o.p. bank overlooked the fact and allowed the miscreants to take away money by fraud practice. He requested the bank to credit his money but they denied and thus compelled the petitioner to file this case.
4. The o.p. bank contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the complainant would have issued account payee cheque but he issued the bearer cheque. The bank further submitted that the sum and substance of Section 85 (2) of N.I. Act, 1981 is the famous maxim “Once a bearer, always a bearer” and in the instant cheques the names of the bearer was written and the word ‘bearer’ remains intact without being struck off. As the word bearer was not struck off in the cheque so payment was made to the bearer whoever he may be as the account holder duly signed the cheque in the place where the customer is required to sign and also the petitioner had put his signature on the back page of the cheque which is nothing but a confirmation to the banker. Thus by his action the petitioner has abated the commission of fraud if there is any such fraud in the instant case. The o.p. further submitted that the customer has not written the word ‘cancelled’ across the cheque in bold letter as is customary in the banking circle and he signed as his specimen signature is kept in the bank. Now the complainant cannot blame the bank for their deficiency in service and the case is dismissed with costs.
5. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. All the issues aretaken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case, the petitioner filed affidavit as well as documents being the alleged two cheques bearing no. 268487 and 268488 and his several correspondences with the bank.The o.p. bank also filed the documents in support of their case and the original cheques which were seized by the investigating officer of the police case also produced before this Forum. Keeping in mind the submission of the ld. counsel of both sides and also the cases of the parties and their relevant documents and on scrutiny of the two original cheques this Forum finds that both the cheques were signed by the consumer/ petitioner and it is his case that he handed over those cheques to one Samrat who promised him to get loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from Tata Capital Financial Services. In the two cheques the petitioner signed both in the front page in the required places conceded by him and also in the back page even denied by him and apparently both the signs in the first page and the back page are similar and also the petitioner did not cancel the cheques across the cheque itself and also he did not struck of the word ‘bearer’ as mentioned in the front page of the cheque. The petitioner in the instant case blamed the employees of the bank that they drained his money illegally passing the cheques though he has not a rustic man or rather in his affidavit he submitted that he is a man of 55 years by profession doing service and thus being educated so many lapses cannot be expected from him. Thus the allegation that the o.p. bank drained his money to the fraud in collusion with bank staff is not acceptable to this Forum when by the two cheques Rs. 46,000/- and Rs. 24,500/- were withdrawn by the bearer and in the cheques the names are written Sandip Saha and Sandip Pal. It is true that bank officials while dealing with the money of others should be cautious in handing over the money to other persons but in the instant case the petitioner issued bearer cheques without striking of the word ‘bearer’ and he did not write the word ‘cancel’ as is commonly known to the customers and also he signed on the back page of the cheque thus allowing the bank officials not to raise any suspicion against the bearer who placed the cheque before them. It is unfortunate that the petitioner lost a sum ofRs. 70,500/- being his hard earned money but it isdue to his lapse and negligence which cannot be thrushed upon bank employees. This is not a case of fraud because here the petitioner conceded that he signed the cheque may be due to in advertence and so no question of any fraudulent activity of any body as apparent is the real state of things.
In view of above discussion and findings this Forum is of opinion that there was
no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. bank, who had no latches on their part in allowing a bearer cheque to be withdrawn being duly singed by the customers and all the lapses are on the part of the petitioner who even if issued and handed over the cheques to said Samrat. Thus in absence of any diligence on the part of the petitioner he cannot succeed in the case and so no question of refund of Rs. 70,500/- as well as compensation and litigation costs. The petitioner lost due to his own latches and negligence and lack of diligence even after issuance of cheques.
In the result, the application fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 267 of 2014 ( HDF 267 of 2014 ) be dismissed on contest without costs against the O.Ps. considering this special facts and circumstances of the case.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
