O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1. Claiming an amount of Rs. 1,44,453/- being the cheque amount of Rs. 94,453/- and damages for Rs. 50,000/- the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank.
2 The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having account with the opposite party bank the opposite party and they provided a cheque drop box on their premises requesting the customers to drop their cheques in the box which are intended for business purpose. As per their advise the complainant was depositing the cheques in the cheque drop box and those cheques will be sent for collection and thereafter it will be credited to the account of the customers.
3 It is also his case on 23.06.2012 he received a cheque from M/s. P.K.R. Projects and Engineers bearing No. 572331 drawn on Axis Bank for sum of Rs.94,453/-. He deposited the said cheque in the cheque drop box of the opposite party and the said cheque was not credited to his account. He approached the opposite party who did not inform him the said cheque was stolen from the cheque drop box as such the amount would not be given to credit his account.
4 It is also the case of the complainant on enquiries he came to know the said cheque was encashed in Canara Bank, Kakinada by some person by tampering with the cheque. According to complainant unless there is collusion of the staff of the opposite party there is no possibility for third parties to commit the theft of the said cheque. Immediately after coming to know the said fact he reported the matter to bank officials as well as SI of Police, II Town Police Station, Kakinada on 02.07.2012. Inspite of his complaint the opposite party did not take any action. Because of the pressure mounted by him the opposite party gave a formal complaint on 03.07.2012 to II Town Police Station Kakinada. Subsequently they did not pursue the matter.
5 According to complainant the opposite party is very negligent and dereliction towards his customers. He also got issued a lawyer’s notice to opposite party. Having received the same they didn’t issue any reply.
6 Subsequently the complainant also approached bankers Ombudsmen who after enquiry advised him to approach competent Civil Court. He deposited the cheque as per the advise and directions of the opposite party and they are liable for the loss caused to him which is the result of gross negligence on the part of opposite party. Thus contending he sought the above said amounts.
7 The opposite party filed its written version denying the material allegations attributed against them and further according to them the drop box facility is provided and is attached to utmost security as it is accessible for dropping of instrument by customers and the accessibility of opening lies with the branch. According to them the cheques that are deposited in the drop box during the bank business hours is subject to opening by the branch on the succeeding day and it will be opened by responsible officer and dropped cheques in the box will be entered in a register that is kept in the regular course of business. There after the deposited cheques will be sent for clearing house. According to them if really the complainant deposited the cheque in question in the box it would have found its place in the said register. Thus according to them the cheque was not deposited by the complainant. The cheque in the question was not accounted for in their regular course of banking business. When the complainant is made aware about the encashment of cheque by the third party with some other bank he must have taken into confident of the person who gave cheque to him. Thus according to them the complaint is not maintainable for non adding of M/s. PKR Projects and Engineers and Canara Bank, Kakinada and thus sought for dismissal of complaint.
8 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts sought by him?
3. To what relief?
9 Point No.1: It is not in dispute that the opposite party bank provided cheque drop box on their premises for customers accessibility for dropping their cheques in the said box. Here the grievance of the complainant is that he dropped a cheque issued in his favour in the said drop box on 29.06.2012 and the same was not credited in his account and on enquiries he came to know somebody stolen the cheque, tampered the same and encashed in Canara Bank, Kakinada. It is his specific case unless there is collusion of the staff of the opposite party bank there is no possibility for the 3rd parties to commit the theft of the cheques. Thus according to him due to gross negligence on the part of opposite party somebody stolen the cheque and encahsed the same in Canara Bank, Kakinada by tampering the said cheque.
10 On the other hand the bank pleads that though they provided such a box a responsible officer of the bank will open the said box, collect the cheques deposited on the earlier day and account for it in a register maintained by them and if at all the complainant deposited his cheque it would have found place in the said register and as the register doesn’t contain any such entry the plea of the complainant is a false one.
11 To buttress his contention the complainant filed his chief affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 xerox copy of the cheque issued by M/s.PRK Projects and Engineers in his favour, A2 copy of complaint lodged with SHO, II Town Police Station, Kakinada, Ex.A3 office copy of lawyer’s notice with acknowledgment, Ex.A4 copy of the complaint lodged with bankers Ombudsman, Ex.A5 Enquiry order by the Ombudsman.
12 As against this evidence the opposite party furnished the affidavit of Deputy Branch Manager who reiterated the allegations in the written version and they exhibited a notarized compared with original of drop box register from 15.11.2011 to 26.09.2013.
13 As seen from Ex.B1 only one cheque was deposited on 26.02.2012 it is not the cheque of the complainant. The complainant didn’t dispute the correctness of this register maintained by the bank in its regular course of business.
14 Though it is sought to be contended by the complainant that the cheque was tampered with and encashed at Canara Bank, Kakinada, no material is produced by him evidencing the said cheque was encashed by 3rd person by tampering the same at Canara Bank, Kakinada. He did not chose to examine the officials of Canara Bank to ascertain who in fact presented the cheque and encashed. Thus the complainant failed to produce any material showing the encashment of the said cheque. On the other hand Ex.B1 would indicate that the cheque in question was not at all deposited by the complainant and thus in these circumstances the complainant failed to produce any evidence, to buttress his contention that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank. Hence this point is answered against the complaint.
15. Point No.2: In view of the finding rendered under point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any amount. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
16. In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 21st day of April, 2015.
Sd/-XXXX Sd/-XXXXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:
Sri Mutyala Srinivas
For opposite party:
Sri Madhu Mandavilli, Deputy Branch Manager
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Xerox copy of the cheque issued by M/s.PRK Projects and
Engineers in favour of the complainant
Ex. A2 Copy of complaint lodged with SHO, II Town Police Station, Kakinada
Ex.A3 Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to
opposite party with acknowledgment
Ex.A4 Copy of the complaint lodged bankers with Ombudsman
Ex.A5 Enquiry order by the Ombudsman.
For opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Notarized compared with original of drop box register from
15.11.2011 to 26.09.2013.
Sd/-XXXXX Sd/-XXXXXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
