DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.271/2009
Shri P.C. Sen
R/o Rower 15 A, Flat No. 81,
ATS Greens Village,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh ….Complainant
Versus
Senior Post Master
Lodhi Road Post Office,
New Delhi-110003 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 25.03.2009 Date of Order : 17.11.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
Facts of the complaint in nutshell are :
1.1 That complainant Shri P.C. Sen had opened three bank accounts with Lodhi Road Head Post Office. The first two accounts were Senior Citizens Savings bank accounts and MIS account, the interest from both of these accounts was to be credited to complainant’s third account.
1.2 On 08.06.2007, the complainant noticed that his cheque book and passbook lying in the almirah in complainant’s office were missing. The complainant immediately wrote a letter dated 08.06.2007 to Senior Post Master with instructions to stop all payments with immediate effect and to send a copy of credits and debits of his Post Office Savings from Bank account No. 3225438. The complainant also requested for duplicate passbook and fresh cheque book. On the same day, Shri Prahlad Singh Assistant Post Master along with Shri Purushotam Lal Assistant Superintendent Post visited complainant’s workplace and handed over to him a duplicate pass book and a fresh cheque book. It was also brought to complainant’s knowledge about the three cheques by which a sum of Rs.31,000/- had been withdrawn from the complainant’s account No. 3225438. Details of the same are given in a copy of the ledger account which is annexed as Annexure-B.
1.3 On scrutiny, complainant realized that the said three cheques were neither signed by him nor the amount was received by him. The complainant wrote a letter on 22.06.2007 to the Senior Post Master reporting to him about the forged cheques and requesting him to credit a sum of Rs.31,000/- to his account. Complainant also filed an FIR on 26.06.2007 reporting the fraudulent withdrawal of cash from his account. The authorities at the police station sent the cheques to Government Examiner of Questioned Document (hereinafter referred to as GEQD).
2. Notice was served upon OP and OP resisted the complaint by filing its written statement. OP stated that on 80.06.2007 the complainant made a complaint that his pass book and cheque book was found missing. On receipt of the complaint, the complainant was informed about the withdrawals made from the account in the month of May, 2007. As requested by the complainant, a duplicate pass book and a fresh cheque book was issued and handed over to the complainant.
2.1 It is further stated by the OP that enquiries made by the postal authorities revealed that the signature on the cheque used for withdrawals were tallying to those available with the post office of the saving bank account of the complainant. Withdrawals were made through ‘Self or bearer’ cheques. No negligence was found on the part of the counter staff who made the payment. After making thorough investigation in the matter, the complainant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 08.08.2007. It is further stated that enquiries also revealed through Shri S.K. Vohra, Private Secretary of the complainant that the complainant had kept his cheque book in his office about which everybody was aware. The cheque book was accessible to everybody and each one of his staff had authority to use the cheques for withdrawals. Hence, the complainant himself was negligent in not securely keeping his cheque book.
3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant wherein all the averments in the complaint have been reiterated in the rejoinder as well as in evidence.
4. OP was proceeded exparte on 08.11.2010 but however, Shri Manjeet Singh PRI has appeared on behalf the OP.
5. Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
6. We have heard arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP
7. Admittedly, the complainant had opened following three accounts under different small saving schemes at Lodhi Raod Head Post Office, New Delhi.
(a) Senior Citizen’s Saving Scheme account No. 4010169.
(b) Monthly Income Scheme Account No. 201213.
(c) Saving Bank Account No. 3225438.
The interests of the aforesaid first two accounts were credited to the Saving bank account No. 3225438. In the month of May, three withdrawals were made from the saving bank account by following three cheques.
- Cheque No. 942068 dated 03.05.2007 for Rs.15,000/-.
- Cheque No. 942067 dated 05.05.2007 for Rs.10,000/-.
- Cheque No. 942075 dated 10.05.2007 for Rs.6,000/-.
- It was alleged by the complainant that these cheques were neither signed by him nor any money was received by him. On noticing, that his cheque book and passbook were missing the complainant immediately reported to the Post Office. Postal authorities after receiving the information immediately took action and supplied him duplicate passbook, fresh cheque book and followed the instructions given to them by the complainant.
- On receiving the alleged complaint, postal authorities investigated the matter and stated that signature on the cheque used for withdrawal were tallying to those available on Saving Bank Account of the complainant. No negligence was found on the part of the counter staff who made the payment. Whereas the complainant has annexed a report sent by Government Examiner Questioned Documents (GEQD) Chandigarh, wherein it is reported that the signature on the said cheques were forged and were not those of the complainant.
- The complainant sent a reminder letter on 02.07.2007 wherein inter-alia it is admitted – “In the same letter the complainant also cited similar incidents faced by him before also when his signatures were forged on cheques and sum amounting to Rs.81,000/- and Rs.88,000/- had been withdrawn from his accounts with Indian Overseas Bank, Parliament Street Branch and Central Bank of India, Khan Market respectively. In both these cases, the bank agreed to refund the stipulated amount towards complainant’s bank account on furnishing of the Indemnity Bonds for the purpose and hence the opposite party in this was requested to follow the same”.
- OP with his written statement has annexed a statement of Shri Surinder Kumar Vohra, Private Secretary to the President, India International Centre wherein it is stated that “The Director’s office consists of a Private Secretary, an Executive Assistant and two Attendants. Shri P.C.Sen joined as Director on the 1st of May, 2003 and from the day one he told all of us that whatever are his personal things and his accounts, passbooks, and cheques books should be known to each and every person working under him, so that whenever, someone is on leave the other can take out the cheque book and passbook for any transaction as desired by the Shri P.C. Sen. And all of us were aware where his passbooks and cheques books were kept”.
- Same has been admitted by the complainant in his rejoinder stating that it is a very common practice adopted by most of the senior officers to keep cheque books and other important documents, in locked cupboards in their office, the keys which are kept both with the officers and the private secretaries. It is pertinent to note that the complainant faced similar incidents wherein his signatures were forged on cheques and Rs.81,000/- and Rs.88,000/- had been withdrawn from his account with Indian Overseas Bank, Parliament Street Branch and Central Bank of India, Khan Market respectively. Despite similar incidents happening with the complainant in the past not once but twice, the complainant was not conscious enough to keep his cheque book and passbook under lock and key. The key of the cupboard where the cheque book and passbook were kept was accessible to the subordinates of the complainant.
- Hence, this forum is of the opinion that due care and diligence was not observed by the complainant in keeping his passbook and cheque books in safe custody. It is settled position of law that one cannot take benefits of his own wrongs. Thus, this Forum is of the opinion that it was due to complainant’s own negligence that someone accessed his cheque book, forged the cheques and withdrew money from his saving accounts in question. Since the signatures on the cheques prima facie tallied with those of complainant’s signature available with the post office deficiency of service cannot be attributed to the Post Office. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 17.11.18
