JUDGEMENT

          Complainant Sri Alakendu Jana by filing this complaint has submitted that he is a software engineer of a reputed company namely IXIA situated at Salt Lake City opened one savings account at the op Branch vide Saving Account No.024-12550-005 in the month of July 2006 and the said saving account of complainant is with the operation of phone banking system since inception of opening of the said account.

          Since the date of opening the said saving Bank Account the complainant obtained four cheque books from the op bank having cheque book nos. (a) 199726-199750, (b) cheque book number 621351-621375 of which complainant used only three cheques vide nos. 621351-621353, (c) cheque book nos. 676501-676525 all are unused cheques, (d) cheque book nos. 679801-679825 all are unused cheques.

          No doubt complainant is busy with his service and found that on several occasions his address, his mobile number and e-mail id number have been changed without intimation and without any instruction from the side of the complainant.  What the complainant intimated to the op through e-mail to the op bank with a request of clarification but no reply was sent by the op.

          Suddenly on 13.01.2009 the complainant found that an amount of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.70,000/- had been withdrawn through cheque nos. 682846 and 682842.  Though complainant did not withdraw any such amount from the bank but the same bank again credited the said amount in the savings account of the complainant and complainant forthwith intimated the said incident to the bank with a demand of verification but the bank kept silent in the matter.

          Subsequently on 02.03.2009 and 03.03.2009 total amount of Rs.3,15,000/- was reflected as withdrawn through cheque nos. 682826 for Rs.85,000/-, no.682849 for Rs.80,000/-, no.682850 for Rs.70,000/- and no.682840 for Rs.80,000/-.  Complainant after considering the conduct of the bank and performance of the bank immediately wrote one letter dated 13.03.2009 to the op bank with a demand for investigation into this matter with highest priority and the op bank received the said letter but kept silent in this regard.

          Again the complainat wrote another reminder letters dated 16.03.2009 and 30.04.2009 with the same request but op bank received the said letter andthere was no reply.  After that bank sent copy of those four cheques leaves to the complainant, but the bank failed to explain the details of the main issue when those cheque leaves were not issued and received by the complainant then how those cheque leaves were used against the complainant’s savings account.

          Having no other alternative the complainant sent one legal notice dated 04.05.2009 to the op bank with a demand of proper explanation in the matter and for refund of the said defalcated amount of Rs.3,15,000/- along with interest and bank though received the same but did not respond and the complainant being aggrieved with the conduct of the op bank and also considering the unfair trade practice on the part of the op bank complainant lodged one complaint before the Maniktala Police Station on 17.03.2009 vide Maniktala P.S. Case No.103 of 17.03.2009.

          From very beginning op bank adopted an unfair trade practice in the matter when they reflected an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as withdrawn through two cheques from the same cheque books and practically it is the gross negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the bank for which complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.3,15,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. and also for compensation and other relief.

          On the contrary the op bank by filing written version submitted that the entire complaint is misconceived one and it is not maintainable and all the allegations are false and fabricated and with an intention to grab money this complaint is filed and practically when the police case is filed then it is under the control of Criminal Court and after getting result of the said Court the matter may be taken up for the decision.

          Further op has submitted that complainant was issued 6 cheques in place of 4 cheque books as claimed by the complainant against complainant’s savings account No.024 12550 006 and the balance 2 cheque books consisting of series (a) 679801 to 679825, (b) 682826 to 682850.  It is further submitted that address of the complainant was never changed without his consent or instruction and further alleged that the alleged transaction were executed by the complainant because the cheque books were issued to the complainant and accordingly it is apparent that same were utilized for transaction in his account and it is further submitted that complainant demanded verification and op was not silent but they supplied the copy of the cheque books.  But op has alleged that the transaction was made and money was withdrawn as per norms.

          It is also submitted that signatures on the four disputed cheques matched with the specimen signature maintained on the record of the complainant’s account.  So there was no occasion for the op bank to decline the transaction and further submitted the cheques by which the amount was withdrawn and was issued to the complainant and which was duly received by the complainant.  Further it is submitted that op bank already redressed the dispute of the complainant by tendering the cheques issued by him through which transactions were executed in his saving account and there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency on the part of the op bank because alleged amount was withdrawn from the account of the complainant not without his instruction.

          But op bank performed its duty by issuing and delivering 6 cheque books as per the request of the complainant, so the allegations of the complainant are false and fabricated.  So, it is clear that the claim of the complainant is false and fabricated and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          Fact remains after considering the written version of the op and the complaint of the complainant and also at fag end of the case the matter was referred to CID Question Document Examination Bureau for expert opinion in respect of the signatures on the disputed cheques with the complainant’s admitted signatures and also by card of changing of address dated 28.02.2008 containing question signature and also standard signature of complainant in the account opening form dated 12.06.2006 etc and it was sent from the Forum with sending all the documents supplied by both the parties.  Thereafter CID Question Document Examination Bureau started question document case No.391/2012 and ultimately submitted report before this Forum on 21.01.2013. 

          After that op was given opportunity to give their objection if any but no objection was filed by the op bank, so we have confirmed to rely upon the report of the CID Question Document Examination Bureau who submitted the report and which shall have to guide us to come to a conclusion because in this case disputed cheques are 682840 dated 26.02.2009, 682850 dated 26.02.2009, 682849 dated 28.02.2009 and 682826 dated 28.02.2009 with HSBC Bank Ltd. because those four cheaues were encashed from the account of the complainant and practically complainant’s allegation is that he never signed in any such 4 cheques for withdrawal and he never withdrew it whereas op’s version is that his signatures on the said 4 question cheque leaves tallied with the signatures as found in the application form for opening account and also the signature as found in other papers lying with the bank in connection with the opening of the account of the complainant and undisputed fact is that the complainant is the savings bank account holder being account No.024 12550 005 which was opened in the month of July 2006 and that is also confirmed from the account opening form which was supplied by the bank to the CID Question Document Examination Bureau for verification of admitted signatures.

          Fact remains that CID Question Document Examination Bureau duly submitted report along with all papers collected from the Forum including documents and signatures supplied by Alakendu Jana and also the document supplied by the bank including the disputed cheques and after apparent consideration of the signatures of Alakendu Jana in the application form for opening the account dated 12.06.2006 and the signatures on the disputed cheques are found completely separate even any prudent man can easily compare it and come to such a conclusion because the hand writings are completely different from the application form for opening the account and the signatures on the disputed cheques. 

          Moreover in each figures of the signatures as taken by the CID Question Document Examination Bureau in their laboratory in 2 ways also support that signatures which were in the application form for opening the account and the signatures on the disputed cheque leaves are completely different and after that we have come to the lengthy report of the expert of CID Question Document Examination Bureau wherefrom it is found that the question document were marked as 1/1 to 1/4respectively.  Whereas signature of the complainant in the account of saving opening form was marked as S/7 and the specimen signatures of the complainant which was taken by the CID Question Document Examination Bureau are marked as S1 to S6 and another signature supplied by the bank in respect of change of address form dated 29.12.2008 is marked as Q2 and considering the report of the CID Question Document Examination Bureau the expert it is found that the specimen signatures marked Exhibit S1 to S7 and the signature of the first change of address form of the bank dated 19.12.2008 are of same by some person.  But after thorough scientific examination and also considering the line of quality, hesitation, pen holding, pen lifting at initial places changed of pen and also report in respect of the disputed question document Q1 to Q1/4 that is 4 disputed chequeswe find that the CID Question Document Examination Bureau Hand WritingExpert came to a conclusion “person who signed the specimen signature linked with S1 to S7 did not sign on question document the 4 disputed cheques which are marked as Q1/1 up to Q1/4”.

          Fact remains after receipt of the said report and after going through said report and other documents op’s Ld. Lawyer left the fray and did not argue.  So, we have gathered the bank is satisfied about the report of the CID Question Document Examination Bureau dated 19.12.2012 and which was reformed by both the parties and no objection was filed against such report of the CID Question Document Examination Bureau.  So considering all the above facts and also relying upon the expert’s opinion as referred by both the parties by CID Question Document Examination Bureau we are convinced to hold that those cheques were not signed by the complainant and no doubt some unscrupulous person making said signatures of the complainant in this cheques and placed it and bank authority did not apply their mind and did not compare and issued those cheques for encashment and no identification of the person was also questioned at the time of encashing the same by the bank and when subsequent two cheque books were not received by the complainant and questioned cheques are o those books.

          In the light of the above findings we are convinced to hold that no doubt bank authority was very callous in passing such cheques and fact remains that the said 4 cheques were not signed by the complainant then it is the liability on the part of the bank and fact remains bank authority did not follow the admitted signatures of the complainant with the signatures of those cheques and for which we are convinced to hold that there was gross laches on the part of the bank for passing such chequeswithout comparing admitted signatures of the complainant which was lying in the hands of the op and it is no doubt negligence and deficient manner of service on the part of the op.

          In fact complainant Alakendu Jana has specifically asserted that henever received any such cheque books with such cheque leaves no.682840 – 682850, 682849 – 682826 and fact remains that op has failed to prove that complainant received those cheques with two books.  But it is specifically case of the complainant that he never issued 4cheques and complainant has not also received any such cheque books.

          So, considering that fact it is clear that within the bank there are some miscreants employees who did it for which bank authority did not hold any inspection; investigation not even filed any case before the Police.  It indicates that some of the employees are dishonest in the said bank and bank has been supporting those dishonest employees of the bank to heckle the saving bank account holder in such a manner and no doubt such sort of dishonest employees of the op bank is unfair trade practice and for which they should be properly dealt with by this Forum.

          Another factor is that in this case very casual approach was taken by the op bank in all respect, but received, documents were supplied by the complainant for verification and when report was received but op did not deny it, then the ops are found dishonest and their lawyer stated the matter may be disposed on the basis of the report of no objection was filed against the report.  So, ultimately the Forum accepted the report and on the basis of the report including other materials we are confirmed that the whole transaction was made by the dishonest staff of the bank and they have their hands and they issued 2 separate cheques in the name of the complainant but it was received by someother miscreants who are friends of the bank employees and the present bank is no doubt very reluctant to take any action against their employees who gave all sorts of help to the miscreants to withdraw huge amount and when in this case truth is well established by the CID Question Document Examination Bureau that signatures in the 4 question documents are not the signatures of the complainant and we have also checked the matter and found that the report is no doubt very much scientific, correct and said report is accepted accordingly we find that the allegation of the complaint is well proved by the expert opinion and we also confirm that the same by applying our judicious mind and conscience.

          In the result the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- against the op bank.

          Op is hereby directed to refund Rs.3,15,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. over the same amount since 04.05.2009 and till full payment of the said amount with interest to the complainant and op shall have to pay the same within one month from the date of this order.

For adopting unfair trade practice and for not taking no action in respect of the complaint of the complainant by the bank and for taking a false defense in this case by the op, op is hereby imposed punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid to this Forum within one month from the date of this order.

          Op is hereby directed to comply the order very strictly within one month from the date of this order as per spirit of this order failing which for disobeyance of the Forum’s order penal action shall be taken against the bank authority for which penal proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started and for which further penalty shall be imposed @ Rs.500/- per day for implementation of the order and till the date of full satisfaction of the decree and further penalty may also to be imposed if they are found guilty for non-compliance of the Forum’s order.