PER JUSTICE SHRI A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

1.      In this case the complainant No.1 stated that he is doctor by profession and employed in medical services of government of United Kingdom and is residing in United Kingdom since 2010, while his wife is residing at address c/o.Mrs.Vidya Mahurkar, G-1, Indira Apartments, Rahate Colony, Nagpur. Complainants had joint Savings Bank Account bearing No.1404101011476 with the opposite party No.3/Canara Bank, Ramdashpeth Branch, Nagpur-440010, since last about 15 years and they are the consumers of opposite parties/bank. The opposite parties had issued a cheque book bearing Nos.789761 to 789780 for their saving bank account in the month of April 2011. Some of which were used and honoured by the complainant. Since opposite party is Nationalized Bank who are having various branches all over India, with one of the branch at Ramdaspeth, where the complainants have their saving bank account.

2.      According to complainant the opposite party/bank is duty bound to send information to the complainant by e-mail to each consumers informing consumers as to on which date and which amount has been withdrawn.

3.      On 15^th of March 2012, the complainant No.2 had received phone call from the Chief Manager of Canara Bank, at Ramdashpeth Branch, Nagpur informing her that some cheques are presented for clearing from outstations which are not from the cheque book issued to complainant No.1. Hence complainant No.2 immediately informed complainant No.1 who was in United Kingdom. The complainant No.1 spoke to the Bank Manager about the same and opposite party No.3 informed complainant No.1 that substantial amounts were cleared through four cheques signed by complainant No.1. The opposite party/bank had also informed that said cheques were presented from outstations. Complainant No.1 informed that he stays abroad and had not issued any cheques to anyone. The complainant No.1 was informed that substantial amount of money had been withdrawn from his account through four cheques out of the cheques mentioned above, from outstations. Thus following are the tabular details regarding the date of clearance, cheque number, amount, bank through which cheque was sent for clearance and person in whose name cheque was shown to be issued.    

4.      According to complainant some mischief must have been played by the bank officials who are hand in gloves with third parties. Deprived of the substantial amount from the saving bank account of the complainant alleges that taking advantage the bank official  knowing that complainant No.1 is doing his professional duty in United Kingdom and is not physically  available in India. Learned advocate for appellants also informed that at the instance of the complainant No.1, police complaint was lodged at Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur and the FIR was registered vide crime No.99/2012 and the offence was registered under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

5.      According to complainant the original cheque book issued was with the complainant and it is only opposite party/bank who can explain how the third parties were allowed to withdraw the substantial amount from the bank account of the complainant when the cheques paid were not issued by them. In our view burden lies upon the opposite party/bank which is a nationalized bank to take care of the consumers particularly like complainant No.1 residing abroad due to his professional duties. Sending alerts in such case is must and an essential service, so that complainant is all along alerted of the cheques presented for clearing and objection if any which may be  recorded by the consumer concerned if such presentation is not genuine. It appears that this was not done in the present case.

6.      It is stated that bank is a vicariously liable acts of its officials for deficient services on their side when the harm is caused to the account holder due to lack of precautions and careless approach. Substantial amount is illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant as a result of want of precaution or omission and alertness of the opposite  party.

7.      At the time of hearing of the complaint, the advocate from the opposite parties tired to pursuade us to accept an argument that the cheques which are produced by the complainants are forged. Instead of word “Ramdaspeth” word “Randaspeth” is printed on all cheque leafs in the book. In our views also minor printing error is not sufficient enough capital to substantiate the argument that cheque book in possession of the complainant is a “forged” particularly when all other details such as serial number of cheques, account numbers and details including official logo of Canara Bank printed on each cheque leaf indicates that cheque book issued to the complainants is genuine. Further more, when some of the cheques up to serial number from 761 to 774 are already honoured. Various cheques are honoured including one issued towards maintenance of the society building where complainant is having flat. It was for the opposite party/bank to have made a protest against printing error caused by the printer concerned who was assigned job of printing cheque books with error as “Randaspeth” instead of “Ramdaspeth”.

8.      In such cases, argument on the part of opposite party/bank which is a nationalized bank cannot be of any help to it to avoid its obligations towards the consumer to provide efficient services   and taking of reasonable precaution while protecting the consumers by issuing   e-mail etc. The bank had therefore failed to provide requisite services which were legitimately and reasonably expected by the complainants that the amounts deposited with the bank are in safe and in trustworthy careful hands. There is failure and omission on the part of bank officials in taking such precautions. In our view the opposite party/bank is answerable when substantial amounts have been allowed to be withdrawn from the saving bank account of the complainants without alerting them or without their knowledge and when the original of disputed cheques are with complainants. It was duty of the bank to produce cheques leafs which were produced on behalf of third parties from the outstations branch of the bank so as to justify the stand it has taken to deny the nature of transaction. We are not commenting on the alleged forgery and fraudulent transaction as alleged by the opposite party/bank, as criminal proceeding is still pending before the police.  However the present case is a clear case of deficiency in service as contemplated in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore we must allow the complaint.

9. Hence complaint is allowed as under :-

// ORDER //

i)        We direct the opposite party/Canara bank to refund all the amounts which have been withdrawn on the basis of four cheques sum total amounting to Rs.18,45,000/-  within 30 days from the date of order with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date when the amount was withdrawn on the basis of cheques received from outstations, till the  date of credit of the same in the saving bank account of the  complainants. If the amount is not credited within a period of 30 days, from the date of this order then the rate of interest shall be carry 9% p.a. instead of 6% p.a. till the amount is fully credited in the account of the complainants.

ii)         The opposite party/Canara bank is also liable to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant as compensation and sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Award accordingly. Original cheque book perused and returned to advocate of the complainant.