Date of filing : 29/06/2012

Order No.  30  dt.  09/03/2018

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant being the account holder of o.p. bank. He was approached by o.p. no.5 being the agent of Citi Bank to provide a credit card of Citi Bank and pursuant to his instruction the complainant had handed over to him to unsigned cheques of S.B. A/C of o.p. no.1. Subsequently the complainant while checking the account through net banking he became surprised to know that Rs.90,000/- has been withdrawn fraudulently from the said account. The complainant contacted o.p. no.1 and he as all through informed by o.p. bank that as per the cheque issued by the complainant those were honoured and the amount was debited from the said account. The complainant after coming to know of the said fact lodged a written complaint to Beliaghata P.S. and Beliaghata Case No.330 dt.15.11.10 was started. The police seized the documents / two cheques and during the investigation the cheques were handed over to hand writing expert by the police and the report was collected from the hand writing expert who opined that divergences in the signature are significant and sufficient to prove the spuriousness of the signatures. On the basis of the said fact the complainant after coming to know requested the bank for payment of the said amount of Rs.90,000/-, but it was ignored for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. bank for payment of the amount of Rs.90,000/- along with interest as well as compensation and litigation cost.

            In spite of receipt of notice the o.ps. did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.

            The complainant in order to prove the case filed the affidavit of evidence whereby he stated that the complainant being the account holder of o.p. bank. He was approached by o.p. no.5 being the agent of Citi Bank to provide a credit card of Citi Bank and pursuant to his instruction the complainant had handed over to him to unsigned cheques of S.B. A/C of o.p. no.1. Subsequently the complainant while checking the account through net banking he became surprised to know that Rs.90,000/- has been withdrawn fraudulently from the said account. The complainant contacted o.p. no.1 and he as all through informed by o.p. bank that as per the cheque issued by the complainant those were honoured and the amount was debited from the said account. The complainant after coming to know of the said fact lodged a written complaint to Beliaghata P.S. and Beliaghata Case No.330 dt.15.11.10 was started. The police seized the documents / two cheques and during the investigation the cheques were handed over to hand writing expert by the police and the report was collected from the hand writing expert who opined that divergences in the signature are significant and sufficient to prove the spuriousness of the signatures. On the basis of the said fact the complainant after coming to know requested the bank for payment of the said amount of Rs.90,000/-, but it was ignored for which the complainant filed this case.

            The complainant in order to prove the case relied on the hand writing expert’s report wherefrom it is evident the cheques were not signed by the complainant and the amount was withdrawn fraudulently by o.p. no.5. Since o.p. no.1 in spite of knowing that the signature was varying from the recorded signature of the account holder which has been corroborated by the expert that the signatures were not of the complainant which were compared with the signatures appears in those cheques, therefore we hold that the bank reluctantly did not compare the signature as per the norms and it is presumed that the banking officials having compared large number of signatures everyday they develop some kind of  expertise in such comparison which a rank layman would not possess [2015(4) CPR 2010 (NC)]. On the basis of the said judgment and the signature not tally with the complainant’s specimen signature proved by the report of hand writing expert and the bank failed to exercise due care in permitting encashment of cheque which clearly established that the fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1 and the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for. Thus the case is disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.271/2012 is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte without cost against other o.ps. The o.p. no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.