BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.391 of 2015

Date of Instt. 07.09.2015

Date of Decision :01.08.2016

Harbhinder Singh aged about 67 years son of Sarwan Singh R/o DV-7/643, Lakar Mandi, Phillaur, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.HDFC Bank Ltd., having its registered office at HDFC, Bank House, Senapti Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, Maharashtra.

2.HDFC Bank, Police Academy, Old GT Road, Phillaur, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

3.HDFC Bank Ltd., GT Road, Goraya, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.SS Rajpal Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Rahul Sharma Adv., counsel for the OPs.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs), on the averments that complainant alongwith his wife Hardeep Kaur opened a limit account in OP No.3 bank on 14.11.2010 in account No.13538040000727 with OD limit of Rs.8 Lakhs. On 27.05.2015, complainant went to Phillaur Branch of HDFC Bank i.e. OP No.2 for withdrawing Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No.021665 dated 27.5.2015 and to surprise and shock of complainant, he came to know that on 18.5.2015 an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was withdrawn from his account from Phillaur Branch i.e. OP No.2 vide cheque No.021660 and his limit of Rs.8 Lakhs was exhausted. Complainant submitted that he never issued any cheque No.021660 dated 18.5.2015 amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- to anyone. Complainant moved one application to Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Phillaur Branch explaining the fraud committed with him and demanding the concerned documents. On repeated requests, it was told by the bank manager that the above said cheque was encashed by some Rakesh Kumar son of Dev Raj from the Phillaur Branch of HDFC Bank and after repeated requests copy of the cheque No.021660 and copy of voter card of Rakesh Kumar was supplied. Complainant was surprised to see the copy of cheque that how OP No.2 encashed the above said cheque without any due diligence and without proper verification of the signatures of the complainant as the same was not signed by the complainant. Complainant submitted that he never issued any cheque to any Rakesh Kumar son of Dev Raj who encashed the concerned cheque. Complainant also moved one application to branch manager of HDFC Bank, Phillaur branch to provide CCTV footage of the transaction on 18.5.2015 but the same was not provided despite repeated requests made by the complainant to the OP No.2. Complainant further submitted that there is clear cut connivance of some employees of the OP NO.2 as information supplied by the complainant to the OP was misused by its employees. On 18.5.2015, complainant had himself encashed Rs.3,50,000/- through cheque No.021664 from the Goraya Branch of HDFC Bank. As such, on 27.5.2015 the aforesaid account of the complainant had no balance amount. As such, complainant had to cancel the cheque of Rs.50,000/-. Complainant also submitted that he had also availed SMS facility with his account from OP NO.2 and as such used to receive SMS from the bank relating to transactions on his mobile No.9815207202 but no SMS was received by the complainant relating to encashment of cheque No.021660 and OP No.3 also could not explain properly regarding this violation of sending SMS to the complainant on his mobile phone regarding transaction of cheque No.021660. Complainant further submitted that as per guidelines and procedure of the banks, third party cash withdrawal of Rs.4,50,000/- could not be allowed. No cash payment could be given by OP No.2 to Rakesh Kumar as he was the third party in the present case. Complainant submitted that some employees of the OP No.2 violated the said rules and encashed the cheque No.021660. OPs were bound to safeguard the interest of the complainant as banks act as custodian of public money and they are accountable but some of the employees of OP violated all the rules, procedures and guidelines given by the RBI. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith interest @ Rs.24 % per annum. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that complainant had issued cheque No.021660 dated 18.5.2015 for Rs.4,50,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. The bank after comparing the signatures, rightly honoured the cheque. The allegations of the complainant are false and vague. The bank had provided all the information as required regarding encashment of cheque by Rakesh Kumar and also provided the copy of voter card of Rakesh Kumar to the complainant. Regarding the CCTV footage , it has been properly replied by the bank to the application moved by the complainant. The OPs submitted that Rakesh Kumar who has withdrawn the amount as per record having no concern with the bank employees. OPs denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA to Ex.CC alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OW1/A and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant alongwith his wife Hardeep Kaur opened a limit account in OP No.3 bank on 14.11.2010 with OD limit of Rs.8 Lakhs. On 27.05.2015, complainant went to OP No.2 i.e. Phillaur Branch of HDFC Bank to withdraw Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No.021665 dated 27.5.2015. When the complainant presented the cheque to the cashier, the complainant was informed that on 18.5.2015 an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was withdrawn from his account from Phillaur Branch i.e. OP No.2 vide cheque No.021660 and his limit of Rs.8 Lakhs had already been fully exhausted. Complainant submitted that he never issued any cheque No.021660 dated 18.5.2015 for Rs.4,50,000/- Ex.C6 to anyone. Complainant moved one application Ex.C5 dated 27.5.2015 to OP No.2. Then the bank manager of OP No.2 told the complainant that one Rakesh Kumar son of Dev Raj had got encashed the aforesaid cheque amount. He supplied copy of the cheque Ex.C6 and copy of voter card of Rakesh Kumar Ex.C7 to the complainant. Complainant submitted that this cheque Ex.C6 does not bear his signatures and the official of OP No.2 encashed the aforesaid cheque amount without proper verification of signatures of the complainant. Complainant never issued this cheque to any Rakesh Kumar. Complainant also moved an application to branch manager of HDFC Bank Phillaur Ex.C8 to provide CCTV footage of the transaction on that date i.e. 18.5.2015 but the same were not provided to the complainant despite repeated request made by complainant to OP No.2. Complainant further submitted that on 18.5.2015, complainant himself had got encashed Rs.3,50,000/- through cheque No.021664 from the Goraya Branch of HDFC Bank. As such, on 27.5.2015 the aforesaid account of the complainant had no balance amount. As such, complainant had to cancel the cheque Ex.C4 of Rs.50,000/-. Complainant also lodged complaint to DSP Phillaur in this regard Ex.C9. Complainant also got compared his standard signatures with the disputed signatures on the cheque No.021660 dated 18.5.2015 Ex.C6 and the report of hand writing expert Arvind Sud in this regard is Ex.C10 which fully proves that the questioned signatures of the complainant on cheque Ex.C6 are not the handwriting of the person who has written standard signatures of Harbhinder Singh complainant. The questioned signatures on this cheque Ex.C6 are the product copied forgery. Complainant also submitted that he had availed SMS facility with his account from OP No.2 and as such used to receive SMS from the bank relating to transactions in the aforesaid account on his mobile No.9815207202 but no SMS was received by the complainant relating to encashment of the disputed cheque Ex.C6 and OP No.3 also could not explain properly regarding this violation of sending SMS to the complainant on his mobile phone regarding transaction of cheque in question Ex.C6. Complainant further submitted that as per guidelines and procedure of the banks, third party cash withdrawal of Rs.4,50,000/- could not be allowed. No cash payment could be given by OP No.2 to Rakesh Kumar as he was the third party in the present case. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this fully proves that the official of OP have violated all the rules, procedures and guidelines issued by RBI in making the transaction of the aforesaid cheque Ex.C6. However, during pendency of the present case, Dheeraj Raja, Manager of OP Bank returned the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant in cash and also begged apology. All this fully proves that the officials of the OPs No.2 & 3 in connivance with some person who represented himself as Rakesh Kumar, got encashed this amount from the aforesaid account of the complainant through this cheque Ex.C6 and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that complainant had issued cheque No.021660 dated 18.5.2015 for Rs.4,50,000/-. The same was presented in OP No.2 bank and the concerned bank official after comparing the signatures, rightly honoured the cheque. The allegations of the complainant are false and vague. The bank had provided all the information as required regarding encashment of cheque by Rakesh Kumar. The OP bank has provided copy of the cheque Ex.C6 and copy of voter card of said Rakesh Kumar Ex.C7 to the complainant. Regarding the CCTV camera footage, the OP has furnished proper reply to the application moved by complainant. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that complainant has received the amount of the cheque in question from the said person and he agreed to withdraw the present complaint vide application dated 28.9.2015 submitted by the complainant to OP No.2 bank. However, counsel for the complainant submitted that he has not made any such application dated 28.9.2015.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant alongwith his wife Hardeep Kaur had a limit account No.13538040000727 in OP No.3 bank with OD limit of Rs.8 Lakhs. Complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from this account vide cheque No.021664 dated 18.5.2015 from OP No.2 bank branch. On 27.5.2015 complainant went to OP No.2 bank branch to withdraw Rs.50,000/- from the aforesaid account vide cheque No.021665 dated 27.5.2015. Then the complainant came to know that on 18.5.2015 an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was withdrawn from their account from OP No.2 bank branch vide cheque No.021660. As such, his limit of Rs.8 Lakhs had already been exhausted. Complainant submitted that he never issued any such cheque No.021660 dated 18.5.2015 for Rs.4,50,000/- Ex.C6 to any person. Then, immediately complainant submitted application dated 27.5.2015 to OP No.2 bank. Then OP supplied photocopy of the cheque No.021660 dated 18.5.2015 Ex.C6 and the copy of voter card of Rakesh Kumar Ex.C7 who has already withdrawn the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from the aforesaid account of the complainant through the aforesaid cheque. The complainant then applied vide application Ex.C8 to OP No.2 to supply CCTV camera footage of the transaction dated 18.5.2015 but the OP No.2 did not supply any CCTV camera footage to the complainant for the reason best known to them. The complainant also got compared his disputed/questioned signatures on this cheque Ex.C1 i.e. questioned signatures mark Q1 to Q3 with his standard signatures, from Arvind Sud examiner of questioned documents who submitted his report Ex.C10 vide which he concluded that the questioned signatures mark Q1 to Q3 on the cheque Ex.C6 are not in the handwriting of person who has written standard signatures mark S1 to S3 of Harbhinder Singh (complainant). The questioned signatures mark as Q1 to Q3 are product of copied forgery. This Forum also compared the disputed signatures of the complainant on cheque Ex.C6 bearing No.021660 dated 18.5.2015 with the admitted signatures of complainant i.e. his signatures on the cheque Ex.C4, his signatures on complaint, signatures of the complainant on power of attorney, signatures on affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB and had come to the conclusion that the disputed signatures of Harbhinder Singh complainant on cheque Ex.C6 did not tally with the standard signatures of the complainant. All this fully proves that the officials of the OPs failed to perform their duties properly as a prudent banker in comparing the disputed signatures of the complainant on this cheque Ex.C6 with his specimen signatures of the complainant/account holder available with the OP bank.

9. Apart from this, this cheque is of amount Rs.4,50,000/- which is a huge amount but the columns of this cheque regarding the name of the person to whom it is payable Rakesh Kumar and the amount of the cheque is written with such an in-ordinary way that a layman shall be able to get inference that this cheque is not properly issued by proper person. Rather its columns have been filled in such a shabby and rough manner that such cheque becomes totally doubtful and the prudent banker shall not allow such cheque to be encashed without getting confirmation from the person who has issued this cheque i.e. complainant in the present case. All this fully proves that the OP bank officials in connivance with some person who presented himself before OP No.2 bank as Rakesh Kumar, with malafide intention, encashed the aforesaid cheque without application of mind as required from a prudent bank official that is why when the complainant filed application to the police Ex.C9 and matter went to the police administration, the OP officials impliedly admitted their fault, found out such Rakesh Kumar and returned the amount of this cheque Ex.C6 i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant as deposed by complainant in his additional evidence/affidavit Ex.CB as well as in the affidavit of one Ankit Shingari Ex.CC who was present when the manager of OP returned this amount of cheque Ex.C6 to the complainant. OP could not rebut the additional evidence filed by the complainant Ex.CB and affidavit of said Anil Shingari Ex.CC. All this shows that the OP bank officials/officers are not only guilty of deficiency of service but are also guilty of dereliction of duty as required from a prudent banker, as a result of which, complainant suffered huge harassment and mental shock. Consequently, we hold that complainant is entitled to compensation payable by the OPs.

10. Resultantly, we allow the complaint with cost and OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh. OPs are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

01.08.02016 Member President