Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

By this Appeal, Partners of M/s Krishna Stationers have challenged the order dated 23-11-2015 passed by Ld. District Forum, Howrah in C.C. No. 124/2015.

In a nutshell, case of the Complainants’ is that Complainant No. 1 sent a cheque to OLX.in without filling up the payee’s name as per its instruction.  Allegedly, the Bank, without verifying the seal of the company cleared the said cheque, resulting which a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was debited from their account.  Complainants’ though lodged a claim with the OP Bank as well as with Bantra Police Station, no headway could be made in respect of their complaint. Thereafter, the Complainants asked the OP to refund the amount to them, but to no avail.  Hence, the complaint.

Per contra case of the OP is that the Complainant No. 1, without following due caution given by the bank, issued the cheque without mentioning the name of the payee as well as other requirement and subsequently made allegation about tampering of company seal and signature of the Complainant No. 1.  Denying any laches on its part, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

We have heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and gone through the material on record carefully.

Undisputedly, the account-holder ‘Krishna Stationers’ is a partnership firm.  It was quite obvious, therefore, that the authorized signatory of the said firm could not be a ‘Proprietor’ under any circumstances.

Nowadays the specimen signature of every authorized person, together with office seal, in case the account-holder happens to be a business firm, is captured and soft copy thereof is put into the system for future reference. Being the custodian of the money of account-holders, it is the sacrosanct duty of a bank to remain extremely vigilant and clear a cheque only when every parameter of the bona fide of a cheque is established beyond all reasonable doubt.  There is no room for any laxity.  

We are totally at a loss as to how the cheque bearing the office seal that denoted ‘Krishna Stationers, Proprietor’ got cleared escaping the attention of all the concerned officials those who dealt with the said cheque. Evidently, the concerned officials cleared the said instrument in a mechanical manner.  Otherwise, the anomaly would certainly not escape the attention of concerned officials.  This clearly manifests gross deficiency in service on the part of the officials of the Respondent.  In our considered opinion, therefore, the Respondent cannot escape its liability to make good the loss suffered by the Appellants.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.  Respondent is directed to pay, within 45 days hence, the sum of Rs. 45,000/- to the Appellants together with simple interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 27-03-2015 till full and final payment is made.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.