JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant had a savings account with the petitioner Bank. A sum of Rs.65,000/- was withdrawn from the above referred account of the complainant using a withdrawal form, for the purpose, on 18.9.2007. The case of the complainant is that his pass-book, having been given to a bank employee, namely, Ram Gopal Verma  was with the Bank at that time. When the complainant came to know of the aforesaid withdrawal of Rs.65,000/-, he lodged an FIR with the concerned police station on 27.9.2007. The complainant also approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking refund of the aforesaid amount along with compensation etc.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank which claimed that there was no employee, namely, Ram Gopal Verma on its roll.  It was also alleged that the pass-book was not delivered by the complainant to the Bank. It was further stated in the reply that the Bank had an employee, namely, G.L. Verma working at that time. Withdrawal of Rs.65,000/- from the account of the complainant was not disputed but it was maintained that the said withdrawal form was duly signed by the complainant himself.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 20.2.2014 allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to refund Rs.65,000/- along with interest and compensation quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner Bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 9.12.2015, the State Commission, while upholding the order of the District Forum on merits, reduced the compensation to Rs.50,000/-. A sum of Rs.21,000/- was directed to be paid as cost of litigation. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner Bank is before us by way of this revision petition.

5.      Though the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Bank did not have an employee, namely, Ram Gopal Verma at the relevant time, the discrepancy in the name of the Bank employee in our opinion is insignificant. This is more so when admittedly an official, namely, G.L. Verma was working in the Bank at that point of time. What is material is as to whether the withdrawal form on the strength of which Rs.65,000/- were withdrawn from the Bank was signed by the complainant or not. Though the case of the complainant is that the pass-book was in the custody of the Bank at the relevant time even if we assume that the pass-book was with him and not with the Bank that would make no difference to the outcome of the case since the Bank, before making payment on the basis of the withdrawal form, was required to compare the signature on the withdrawal form, with the specimen signature of the complainant available in the record of the Bank.

6.      Despite the complainant having denied on oath, his alleged signature on the withdrawal form, no handwriting expert was examined by the Bank to prove that the complainant is the author of the said signature.

7.      Though the employees of the Bank who are entrusted with the task of comparing the signatures on the cheques etc. with the specimen signatures of the account holder  are not hand-writing   experts, they do develop some kind of skill, in such matters by virtue of their experience in the said task. We have ourselves compared the signatures on the withdrawal form dated 18.9.2007 with the signatures of the complainant on other withdrawal forms which the petitioner Bank  has filed before us. The signature on the withdrawal form dated 18.9.2007 is apparently different from the signatures on the other withdrawal forms. Not to talk of a bank employee engaged in the task of comparing the signatures on cheques etc. with the specimen signature of the account holder, even a layman will say, on the said comparison, that the signatures on the withdrawal form dated 18.9.2007 are  different from the signatures on the other withdrawal forms. Therefore, no prudent bank official could possibly have made payment of Rs.65,000/- on the basis of the signatures appearing on the withdrawal form dated 18.9.2007. The Bank, therefore, was clearly negligent in rendering services to the complainant by making payment from his account on the basis of the above-referred apparently different signature. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the Fora below. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed accordingly.