Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/538/2014

B.R.Azad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Office The Haryana State Co-Operative Apex bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. RD Vinayak Adv.

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	538 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	16.10.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	20.03.2015

 

 

 

 

 

B.R.Azad, aged about 86 years, son of Late Sh.Prem Chand, R/o H.No.1220, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Head Office, The Haryana State Co-operative Apex Bank ltd., SCO No.78-80, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Chief General Manager.

 

2]  The Haryana State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Sector 32, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

3]  The Haryana State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.  

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

        

 

Argued By:  Sh.R.D.Vinayak, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Sanjeev Kochhar, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case of the complainant, he was holding Account No.000734001000779 with Opposite Party No.2 Bank and it was being operated jointly by him and his daughter Nirmal Kanta. On 15.4.2014, the said account had a balance of Rs.4,87,920.91P, but on 14.5.2014 when the complainant visited the Opposite Party No.2 bank and presented cheque for Rs.20,000/-, he was told that there is not enough balance in his account to negotiate the cheque, it being only Rs.7,830.91.  He was told that two cheques No.2923 and 2925 for Rs.4,10,090/- and Rs.70,000/- respectively had been presented to the bank through Opposite Party No.3 and the amount was transferred to SB Account No.000234001100125 of Opposite Party No.3 by one Sahil Sharma on 23.04.2014 and 13.5.2014 respectively (Ann.C-2 & C-3).  The matter was reported to the Bank Manager as well as to the Police (Annexures C-4 & C-5). After probing the matter at his own, the complainant came to know that one Sahil Sharma s/o Ashok Sharma having account with Opposite Party No.3 deposited an amount of Rs.4,10,090/- in his account through forged cheque No.002923, dated 22.4.2014.  The said cheque bears the signature of Sahil Sharma on the reverse (Ann.C-9).  It is averred that the said Sahil Sharma also forged the signature of the complainant on the column of introducer and filled the particulars of the complainant.  Thereafter again an amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited against cheque No.002925, dated 12.5.2014 on 13.5.2014 (Ann.C-3).  The said Sahil Sharma also withdrew the amount from his account.  It is averred that neither the OPs nor the police have taken any action in the matter.  It is also averred that the Bank instead blamed the complainant for the fraudulent withdrawal from his account on the ground that if the cheques were lost and mis-used by any person, it is the responsibility of the customer/account holder.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have filed joint reply and stated that from the averments made in the complainant, it is a case of fraud, forgery, cheating and theft, which is not triable by this court being not falling within its jurisdiction and hence, liable to be relegated to the Civil Court.  It is admitted that the complainant is having saving bank account with the Opposite Party No.2.  The withdrawal of the amount from his account against two alleged cheques are also admitted.  The receipt of complainant from the complainant with regard to fraudulent transfer of Rs.4.00 lacs and Rs.70,000/- through cheque No.2923 and 2925 respectively by some Mr.Sharma is also admitted.  It is also admitted that Sh.Sahil Sharma opened an account with the Opposite Party Bank on 23.4.2010.  It is stated that the cheque No.2923, dated 22.4.2014 for Rs.4,10,090/- and No.2925, dated 12.5.2014 for Rs.70,000/- were account payee cheques and credited in the account of Sh.Sahil Sharma.  The said cheques did not bear the signatures of Sh.Sahil Sharma on its reverse as alleged.  It is pleaded that the complainant instead of initiating criminal proceedings against the person, who forged his signatures and mis-appropriated his amount, as alleged, instead interested in getting reimbursement/compensation for the said forgery allegedly committed by someone.  The act and conduct of the complainant in this regard is sufficient to establish that the complainant himself is hand in glove with one Sahil Sharma, who had allegedly misappropriated the blank cheques of the complainant.  Even otherwise, the complainant has no plausible explanation in respect of keeping blank cheques with him duly signed which has to be treated as an offer to offer committing of the offence by the culprits.  Moreover, the bank cannot be blamed for the negligence on the part of the account holder, who is duty bound to take care of his important documents and valuable.  It is also pleaded that the complainant had himself introduced Mr.Sahil Sharma while opening the savings bank account and now he is trying to play fraud with OPs by alleging that his signatures have been forged.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant is having savings bank account holder bearing No.000734001000779 with Opposite Party No.2 jointly held with Smt.Nirmal Kanta, complainant’s daughter, resident of Mohali.   The complainant claims that the said account is being singularly operated by him and his daughter’s name has been incorporated only for the purpose of inheritance.  The complainant claims that his account had a balance amount of Rs.4,87,920.91 on 15.4.2014.  However, when he presented a cheque bearing No.2926 for Rs.20,000/- on 14.5.2014, the same was returned by the dealing official declaring that his account did not have enough amount necessary for negotiating the cheque in question. The complainant was shocked to his wits coming to know that there was only a balance of Rs.7830.91 on that day and on enquiring further, he came to know that an amount of Rs.4,10,090/- and Rs.70,000/- were withdrawn by presenting two cheques bearing No.2923 & 2925, on 23.4.2014 and 13.5.2014 respectively.  The copies of these are annexures C-2 & C-3. 

 

6]       The complainant claims that he wrote a complaint to the Opposite Party No.2 asking them to disclose the entire details and provide him with the copies of record pertaining to his account and also of the account to which the cheques in question were presented. The complainant also intimated the SHO of P.S. Sector 34, Chandigarh requesting investigation into the matter. 

 

7]       The complainant had also asked OPs to investigate the entire episode with regard to the Opening of the account with them of the person Sh.Sahil Sharma, who had presented the cheques in question to be deposited in his account maintained with Opposite Party NO.2 and also the manner in which the necessary documentation was ignored in order to facilitate the opening of the account by this person Sh.Sahil Sharma.  The complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties failed to investigate the matter in its totality, so as to conclude as to which official of the Opposite Parties was responsible to fore-go or ignore the mandatory provisions necessary for opening of the account, thus leading to a situation that a person with doubtful credentials opened an account with the Opposite Party Bank and further even siphoned off a huge amount of Rs.4,80,000/- approx. from the account of the complainant by using his cheques.

 

8]       Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, has sought the relief quoted as prayed in the complaint.

 

9]       We have gone through the contents of the complaint of the complainant, reply filed by the Opposite Parties and the documents on record.  It is an admitted case that the complainant was operating a savings bank account with Opposite Party No.2 and also that there was an amount of Rs.4,87,920.91 on 15.4.2014 and thereafter, two cheques bearing No.2923 and 2925 amounting to Rs.4,10,000/- and Rs.70,000/- were presented to Opposite Party No.2 by one Mr.Sahil Sharma for the transference of these amounts into his account, which was finally withdrawn in cash by presenting self-cheques by him. 

 

10]      The complainant for the first time came to know about the unwarranted withdrawals from his account, when his cheque of Rs.20,000/- bearing NO.2926 was not honoured, when it was presented on 14.5.2014 for the reason of insufficient funds.  The complainant, thereafter raised the issue with the Opposite Parties and also moved the office of S.S.P., Chandigarh for investigating the matter and filing of F.I.R. against Mr.Sahil Sharma, whose details, as per the records of Opposite Parties were provided to the Police Authorities. 

 

11]      The allegations of the complainant that the Opposite Parties failed to take necessary cautions and having ignored the mandatory provisions at the time of opening of account of Mr.Sahil Sharma with them have come to his knowledge only after such details were provided to him by the Opposite Parties.  But at the same time, the reply of the Opposite Parties denying any wrong doing on their part, have not explained as to in what manner they had investigated the allegations of the complainant and on the basis of such investigations did not find anything objectionable in the process of opening of the savings bank account of Mr.Sahil Sharma and also the process of his presenting the cheques of the complainant and ultimately the withdrawal of the amount in cash by him.  The reply of the Opposite Parties is totally silent on this issue. 

 

12]      The complainant has in detail pointed out the discrepancies as mentioned in Para No.12 from (a) to (m) of the complaint and the Opposite Parties while replying to said Para No.12 of the complaint, have claimed that there was no fault on their part, but all the necessary mandatory provisions were complied with.  While answering to these objections, with regard to the non-submission of PAN Card, leaving blank columns necessary for KYC norms, mentioning of the occupation by Mr.Sahil Sharma as business and non-disclosure of the name of the firm and though mentioning submission of form 60, which is not found in the record of Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties have only circumvented the real issue and have only given a simple answer that Mr.Sahil Sharma could not be compelled to produce these details as the same were not available with him on the date of opening of his account.  The Opposite Parties, however, have not disclosed as to what was the urgency of opening the savings account by Mr.Sahil Sharma in the absence of these documents and fulfillment of the necessary obligations by him.  It is evident that the Opposite Parties have not placed on record any document along with the reply from where their bona fide of having investigating the matter in totality could be believed.

 

13]      The Opposite Parties have annexed Ann.R-1, which is the KYC (Know Your Customer) / AML (Anti-Money Laundering) Standards, Obligations of Banks under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 Circular dated 13^th Dec., 2012.  It is important to quote here that Mr.Sahil Sharma had opened his savings bank account on 23.4.2014 and presented  the cheque bearing No.2923 of Rs.4,10,090/- and even withdrew an amount of Rs.4,05,000/- on the same day i.e. 23.4.2014 by presenting a self-cheque issued in his name.  The complainant has alleged that all the documentary formalities for opening of the account, filling-up of the deposit slip and also the disbursal of the amount of Rs.4,05,000/- were executed by the official of the Opposite Parties as there is one single handwriting is found on these documents indicating the help of officials of the Opposite Parties in the process of release of the amount in favour of Sh.Sahil Sharma.  

 

14]      The Opposite Parties have not answered the allegations of the involvement of their officials in facilitating the smooth transfer of huge amount of money of the complainant into the account of Mr.Sahil Sharma on the same day i.e. 23.4.2014.  Had Opposite Parties investigated the matter internally by marking an enquiry either to a Senior Officer of the Bank or their own Vigilance Cell, the truth would have certainly come to light.  The act of the Opposite Parties in not taking the matter seriously and giving a long rope to an unscrupulous person like Mr.Sahil Sharma, certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Though we understand that the recovery of the amount from Mr.Sahil Sharma and also establishing of the fact that who all are responsible in this crime would only come after this issue is thoroughly investigated by the police and dealt with by a Civil Court. Therefore, we restrain ourselves in ordering the reversal of debit entry of Rs.4,80,090/-, but at the same time it cannot be falsified that the complainant has been denied the fruits of his hard-earned money and that since the day of the debit entries, the complainant has also been loosing interest on the entire amount of Rs.4,80,090/- and the same is adding each day for which he certainly deserves to be adequately compensated. 

 

15]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found to be deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite Parties are directed as below:-

 

[a] To pay interest at the savings bank rate on the amount of Rs.4,80,090/- since the respective dates of two debits entries till the date the said amount is recovered;

 

[b] To pay Rs.15,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] of para 15 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20^th March, 2015

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.538  OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 20th day of March, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)	(Rajan Dewan)
Member	President