O R D E R
PER SHRI. S.S.PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties as Opposite Party No.1 supplied fake currency notes to the Complainant as alleged.
2) The facts of the complaint as stated by the Complainant are that the Complainant is the customer of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant’s A/c. No. with the Opposite Party No.1 is 30155649954. It is the contention of the Complainant that he withdrew an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 branch. This amount was withdrawn through two cheques bearing No.774927 for Rs.75,000/- and Cheque No.774928 for Rs.1 Lac. The amount was paid by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant in a sealed bundle currency notes of different denominations. The currency notes bundles being sealed he believed the same and did not open the bundles and did not count the notes. He kept the amount at his residence and after 8 weeks on 25/07/07 the said amount was to be paid to one Mr. Paresh Shah, Mr. Paresh Shah opened the bundle and found in one bundle of Rs.100 currency notes, 23 notes fake and counterfeit. Mr. Paresh Shah informed to the Complainant who in tern filed police complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 was also informed about the above incident. Opposite Party No.1 refused to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 had given him the fake notes.
3) The Complainant further stated that Mr. Shah has filed a complaint with police. In para 5, he states that “Mr. Shah informed the same to the Complainant who subsequently filed a police complaint.
4) The Complainant has further stated that after 3 months he wrote a letter dtd.24/10/07 to Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.3 for taking action. The Opposite Party No.1 replied to this letter vide its letter dtd.19/11/07. The Complainant has attached the xerox copy of SBI label on packet, used for sealing the currency bundle of notes alongwith a copy of the fake notes.
5) It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 & 3 did not take any action in respect of the fake currency notes & he was subjected to mental & physical harassment.
6) It is stated by the Complainant that a letter dtd.30/05/09 was also sent to the Opposite Party No.2 but Opposite Party No.2 also failed to take any action. The Complainant has finally prayed that Opposite Party No.1 be directed to pay Rs.2,300/- alongwith interest, a compensation of Rs.10 Lacs for physical & mental suffering, legal cost of Rs.40,000/-. Opposite Party No.1 be restrain from practicing unfair trade practice. Opposite Party No.2 be directed to frame suitable guide lines to deal with the issues of fake currency. Opposite Party No.3 be directed to produce the report of investigation and action taken against the Opposite Party No.1.
7) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents in support of his complaint –
a) Letters dtd.23/10/07 addressed to the Complainant by Shah & Snghavi.
b) Letter dtd.27/07/07 from Shah & Sanghvi to Opposite Party No.1.
c) Letter dtd.29/10/07 from Complainant’s firm to the Opposite Party No.1.
d) Letter dtd.19/11/07 form Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
e) Copy of fake note and a label, paper cutting.
f) Letter dtd.09/11/07 from Opposite Party No.3 to the Complainant.
g) Letter dtd.20/05/09 from Adv. Nahar Mahala to Opposite Party No.1.
h) Letter dtd.20/05/09 from Adv. Nahar Mahala to Opposite Party No.3.
i) Letter dtd.30/05/09 from Adv. Nahar Mahala to Opposite Party No.2.
8) The complaint was admitted and notices were served on the Opposite Party No. 1& 2 only. The name of Opposite Party No.3 is deleted by the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 & 2 appeared before this Forum. Opposite Party No.1 filed its written statement wherein it denied the allegations of deficiency but admitted that the Complainant had withdrawn a cash of Rs.1,75,000/- from his current account of M/s. Optimus Marketing. Money was dispensed in six packets, each packet containing 100 notes. 3 packets of notes of 500 denomination, two packets of 100 denominations and one packet of Rs.50 denomination on 09/06/07. The Opposite Party No.1 has stressed on the point that, as per clean note policy of Reserve Bank of India, “before leaving the bank counter, the customer should satisfy that the cash received by him is in order in every respect and no claim in this regard is considered under any circumstances thereafter.” A notice to this effect is printed on each seal of packet in addition to the notice displayed on the cash counter.
9) It is further explained by the Opposite Party No.1 that each packet consisting of 100 notes of same denomination is made after counting with the help of counting machine and there is no chance or tampering with machine. Notes which are lesser or bigger size than the normal ones would not be recognized by the censor of the counting machine and the packet would not indicate 100 notes. It is also explained that dual display note counting machines are available at cash counter in order to enable the customers to verify the cash. Facility of counting the cash with privacy is also available if requested.
10) In the instant case, the Opposite Party No.1 further states that, after 48 days the Complainant came with the story that one Mr. Paresh Shah told the Complainant that while opening the packet of 100 Rupees notes, he found 23 notes of Rs.100/- fake and counterfeit notes. From 09/06/07 to 25/07/07, the packets were with the Complainant.
11) The Opposite Party has further stated that, it carried out a thorough check of entire currency in its strong rooms after receiving this complaint, but no fake currency was found. It also has not received any other complaint of this nature from other customers so far. Finally the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. The Opposite Party No.2, Reserve Bank of India has also filed its written statement wherein it has vehemently pointed out that the Complainant is not its consumer as it is statutory body, constituted under Reserve Bank of India Act. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of party. Even, it is not a necessary party to this complaint. Complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Opposite Party No.2.
12) The Opposite Party No.2 has also clarified that it had sent a letter dtd.24/06/09 to the Complainant stating the steps taken by it (Annexure RI). The Complainant was advised to take up the matter with Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 informed the Opposite Party No.2 that it is not liable after the customer leaves the cash counter with cash. The Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible after the customer leaves the cash counter. Such issue cannot be entertained by him or the postal department and
this instruction has been printed on the note packet/slip as well as near cash counter.
13) The Opposite Party No.2 has further stated that Complainant’s advocate sent a notice dtd.30/05/09 to Opposite Party No.2, but the veracity of contents of the said notice are not admitted. The Opposite Party No.2 replied to the notice vide its letter dtd.24/06/09. In this reply the Opposite Party No.2 explained the instructions contained in master circular 2008 on Detection & impounding of counterfeit notes, available at RBI’s website www.rbi.org.in under notification. Therefore, it is not correct that the Opposite Party No.2 did not reply to the notice of the Complainant. Thus, finally the Opposite Party No.2 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
14) Thereafter, the Complainant filed his rejoinders and written argument wherein he denied the points raised by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties also filed their affidavits of evidence and written arguments wherein they reiterated the facts mentioned in their written statements. Both the parties filed pursis to treat their written arguments as their oral arguments. These pursis were taken on record. We perused the documents submitted by both the parties and our findings are as follows.
15) A Company Optimus Marketing is having a Cash Credit Account No.30155649954 with Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant on the behalf of the said company withdrew an amount of cash Rs.1,75,000/- on 09/06/07 by two cheque, one was of Rs.1 Lac and second was of Rs.75,000/-. The whole amount was dispensed with by Opposite Party No.1 in 6 bundles. This cash was kept at the residence of the Complainant from 09/06/07 to 25/07/07. On 25/07/07 one sealed bundle containing 100 notes of 100 denominations were handed over to one Mr. Paresh Shah of Shah & Sanghvi Firm.
16) It is alleged that the 23 currency in one packet of 100 Rs. notes were fake and not genuine. One Mr. Paresh found these fake notes. A letter was written to the Cuffe Parade Police Station in this respect. It was stated in this letter that 92 notes were stapled and 8 notes were loose notes. However, as per Reserve Bank guidelines the notes are not stapled. It is seen from the note slip of Opposite Party No.1 produced by the Complainant that the bundles were prepared on 08/06/07. As per the rules existing on 08/06/07 the currency notes are not stapled.
17) When the Complainant made a complaint to Opposite Party No.1 regarding supply of fake notes, the Opposite Party No.1 vehemently refused the contention of the Complainant that it has supplied the fake notes and further explained to the Complainant that as per the guide lines of RBI and an instruction printed on the cash counter he was supposed to verify the notes and bring to the notice of the Opposite Party No.1 if the notes are fake or there is less notes delivered to him. If he had failed to do so Opposite Party No.1 has no liability if he leaves the cash counter or the bank. In the instant case the Complainant had accepted the cash of Rs.1,75,000/- on 09/06/07, kept it at his house for 48 long days and on 48th day one Mr. Paresh Shah opens the bundle of notes and detects 23 notes fake. The entire episode reveals a lethargy on the part of the Complainant in light of the instructions displayed by Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 has rightly apprised every customer including the Complainant to be vigilant and diligent about the cash he receives from the Opposite Party No.1. However, in the instant case the Complainant has miserably failed to open the bundle of notes and see whether it contained fake currency notes.
18) As per the Complainant, one Mr. Paresh Shah has opened the bundle. He found the 23 notes fake in this bundle. The Complainant has not filed any affidavit of Mr. Paresh Shah in this respect. We have minutely examined the papers filed by the Complainant. The letter dtd.27/07/07, addressed to Inspector of Police is written by “For Shah & Sunghavi a Firm.” It cannot be concluded that this letter was personally written by Mr. Paresh Shah. Mr. Paresh Shah has not come before this Forum to state anything about the incident.
19) The police station has sent a letter dtd.09/11/07 addressed to the Complainant to be present at the police station to state in respect of the application dtd.27/07/07. However, it appears that the Complainant has failed to appear before the SHO and has not cooperated with him. He was specifically instructed that the Complainant should meet Mr. Subhash Chavan, PSI at specific time. However, the Complainant neglected to do so. In this respect, the Complainant has alleged in his complaint that on visit to police station, instead of taking strong action, Opposite Party NO.3 has requested the Complainant to abandon the issue. The Shah & Sanghavi had made a complaint in respect of fake currency. If the SHO instructs/requests to the Complainant to abandon the issue, the Complainant should have made a complaint to the superior officers in this respect or at least he should have insisted to register the F.I.R. in this respect. Had he or Mr. Paresh Shah approached the Superiors of the SHO alongwith the fake currency notes, the SHO ought to have registered the F.I.R. in this respect and the investigation could have been put into motion in order to find out the real culprits. Therefore, only making averment that the SHO requested him to abandon the issue does not help the Complainant to support his contention. We have noted the point that at no point of time from the registration of this complaint till its filing the written argument, the Complainant has produced the original counterfeit currency notes and the label of the Opposite Party No.1. The complaint cannot be proved on the basis of xerox copies.
20) The Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement has clarified that Dual display note counter machines are available at the cash counter in order to enable the customer to verify cash dispensed with. Facility is also available for physical verification of cash handed over to them by physical counting and if requested with absolute privacy. The Opposite Party No.1 has specifically stated that the Complainant is making false and frivolous allegations and the same are denied in toto.
21) During the internal enquiry of the Opposite Party No.1, it is transpired that no notes were found in their stock of currency notes and no other complaint of similar nature was received by it.
22) The Opposite Party No.2 is the Reserve Bank of India. It is not the entity which has provided any service to the Complainant by accepting any consideration. Therefore, the Complainant is not a consumer of Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is not tenable. The name of Opposite Party No.3 is deleted by the Complainant.
23) It is seen that the alleged fake currency notes were found by Mr. Paresh Shah. These currency notes are neither produced before the police nor before this Forum. The Complainant was not diligent when he received the cash from the cash counter of the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong of not verifying the cash at the counter of Opposite Party No.1. Even he has not properly and diligently followed up to register the F.I.R. in respect of fake currency notes with Cuff Parade Police Station. Therefore, in our candid view the complaint is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the order –
O R D E R
1. Complaint No.199/2009 is hereby dismissed for want of merit.
2. There is no order as to cost.
3. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
