Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Smt. Shelar

Opponent through Lrd. Adv. Athavale

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President              Place   :  PUNE

// J U D G M E N T //

                                           (24/04/2014)                                                                                                                                      

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against the bank for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts are as follows.

1]       The complainant is running business of M/S Kohinoor Agencies and he is resident of Narayan Peth, Pune – 30.  He had current account with the opponent bank and he is operating his account daily for 15 to 20 transactions.  He has also saving account in the said bank.  On 5/12/2009 there were unusual withdrawals through bearer cheques from his account from the different branches of the opponent bank.  Withdrawals were of amounts varying from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- in between 9.15 a.m. to 12.00 noon.  The total amount which was withdrew from his account was Rs. 2,35,000/-.  It was transpired that one Mr. Rjendra Popat Mahadik had stolen cash as well as blank cheques from his shop; hence FIR was lodged against him.  Police recovered an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- from him.  According to the complainant, the unknown person had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- by using two cheques from Kothrud branch, Rs. 48,000/- each from Aundh, Deccan and Laxmi Road branch and an amount of Rs.46,000/- from Sahakar Nagar branch on the same day within period of three hours.  It is the case of the complainant that the opponent bank did not take care while making payment of the said cheques.  There is no proper security.  The complainant was busy in wedding at that time; hence he had sustained mental torture as well as financial loss.  The complainant had issued notice to the opponent for the payment of Rs. 1,10,000/-.  He has also claimed an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of compensation on various grounds.  The opponent did not give proper response to the notice of the complainant.  Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant.  The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.9,10,000/- as well as cost of Rs. 25,000/- from the opponent.

2]      The opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version.  It is the case of the opponent that there is no any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the opponent.  The complainant himself did not take proper care to secure the cheque book.  He had not informed the bank immediately after commission of theft of cheque book.  The complainant himself is negligent, as the cheques were bearer cheques and these were presented at various branches of the opponent bank.  There was no deficiency in service.  The signature on those cheques were properly verified by the concerned branch and after due verification, payment was made to the bearer of the cheques.  The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

3]      After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the  determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

REASONS :-

5]      The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant is account holder of the opponent bank.  It is also not in dispute that various cheques were presented before various branches of the opponent bank on one day and the payment was made by the branches accordingly.  It is the case of the complainant that there was gross negligence on the part of the opponent, as it has not verified signatures  on   the  cheques,  which  were  presented  before   various

branches of the opponent bank.  It is also contended by the complainant that the opponent bank should have informed the complainant about the unusual withdrawal on the date of incidence.  It reveals from the record that theft of the cheque book along with cash was committed from the shop of the complainant on 4/12/2009.  In such circumstances, the complainant should have been informed the bank for stopping the payment of the cheques.  It is alleged by the complainant that some of the cheques were cancelled cheques.  But that fact is not brought on record by the complainant.  It is the case of the opponent that cheques were bearer cheques.  They have verified the signature on the cheques; hence there is no deficiency in service.  The Forum found substance in the contention of the opponent.  The opponent was not intimated about the theft of the cheque book.  In such circumstances, it is very difficult to accept that the opponent has caused deficiency in service.  In the result, the Forum answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.

                                      **  ORDER **

1.                 Complaint stands dismissed.  In the

peculiar circumstances, there is no

order as to the costs.

2.                 Copies of this order be furnished to

the parties free of cost.

                   3.       Parties  are directed to collect the sets,

which were provided for Members within

one month from the date of order, otherwise

those will be destroyed. 

Place – Pune

Date-  24/04/2014