Dt. 05.01.16

JAGANNATH BAG, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The present appeal is directed against the Order, dated 27.02.14, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas, in CC Case No. 399 of 2013, whereby the complaint was allowed on contest against the OP with cost.

           The Complainant’s case, in brief, was as follows:

          The Complainant on 24.08.2012 went to the office of the OP No.1 for updating her Pass Book, when she found that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn from her account beyond her knowledge. The Complainant asked the office staff of the OP No.1 in what form or on what basis the money had been delivered. No satisfactory reply could be given by the office staff. Inspite of repeated queries she did not get any satisfactory reply from the OPs. A legal notice was served upon the OP No.1, but to no effect. In the said circumstances, the consumer complaint was filed with prayer for direction upon the OPs to pay the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with up to date interest, a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

          The OPs filed W.V. and thereby contended, inter alia, that the Complainant tendered a withdrawal slip for Rs. 40,000/- along with the Pass Book. All formalities being completed, the concerned official paid the amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the Complainant after obtaining her acknowledgement on the back of the withdrawal slip. Hence, the allegation of not withdrawing the alleged amount of Rs. 40,000/- by the Complainant does not stand. It was further submitted that payment against withdrawal slip can be made only when the same is accompanied by Pass Book. Since the Pass Book was with the Complainant , which she admitted in her complaint, no body other than the Complainant can withdraw money against the withdrawal slip.  The signatures of the Complainant, being the account holder, as appeared in the withdrawal slip as also the cheques submitted earlier were of  the same person. The Complainant did not approach the Ld. Forum with clean hand and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed. 

       Ld. Forum below perused the evidence of affidavit filed by both parties and also questionnaire and replies submitted . Ld. Forum below observed that though the dispute was made regarding withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 40,000/-, the OP Bank did not take any step to verify the signature allegedly done by the Complainant in the withdrawal slip by sending it to the hand writing expert. It was also observed that a customer will not dare to file a false case against a reputed bank. It was also observed that the OP admitted that no written reply was given to the Complainant regarding her letter of complaint. In such position , the complaint was allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The OP Bank was directed to refund the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- along with interest at the banking rate of interest from the date of alleged withdrawal and to pay the cost within 15 days from the date of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

       Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below, the OP Bank has come up with the present appeal.

     Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that as per rule, withdrawal of  money from one’s account by presentation of withdrawal slip can not be allowed until and unless the Pass Book is also presented. As per statement of the Respondent/Complainant she never handed over her savings bank Pass Book to anybody. If that is the position, there was no chance of entertaining the withdrawal slip unless presented by the account holder along with the Pass Book. On Comparing the signatures appearing on the impugned withdrawal slip with those appearing on her signature card and other papers available with the bank, it was evident that the signatures were of the same person. Ld. Forum below did not consider the material fact that the Complainant was contacted over telephone and she appeared at the branch of the OP Bank when she was shown the impugned withdrawal slip and expressed her satisfaction. The impugned order was passed arbitrarily without valid reasons and hence needed to be set aside.

     Ld. Advocate for the Respondent submitted that she was enjoying cheque facilities and always used cheques for withdrawal of money from her savings bank account. In case, any withdrawal slip was presented for withdrawal of money from the savings account a declaration was required to be obtained from the account holder that there was no cheque leaf available with the cheque book for withdrawal of money. No such declaration could be produced by the Appellant Bank before the Ld. Forum below. Even the Bank did not send the signature on the withdrawal slip to any expert for verification. There was clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/OP. Ld. Forum below passed the impugned order having considered all material facts, and the said order deserves to be upheld.

     The point for consideration is whether there was any material irregularity or legal infirmity in passing the impugned order.

                             Decision with Reasons:

     The memorandum of appeal has been gone through together with copies of the impugned order, the petition of complaint, the W.V. filed before the Ld. Forum below and other documents including the questionnaire by the Complainant, replies thereto by the OP Appellant, the questionnaire by the OP Appellant and replies thereto and also the evidence on affidavit filed on behalf of the OPs.

     The fact goes that the Complainant, while visiting the bank on 24.08.2012 found that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn without her knowledge. It was by rule that the withdrawal slip can not be entertained by the Bank without presentation of the Pass Book along with the withdrawal slip. The alleged withdrawal of money shocked the Respondent/Complainant who inspite of her repeated queries did not get satisfactory reply from the OPs.

     It is, however, striking to note that her enquiry was all along verbal since 24.08.2012 except the issue of legal notice which was at a much later date, i.e., 05.06.2013. In fact, as alleged by the Appellant ,  no written complaint was lodged by the Respondent /Complainant about unauthorized withdrawal of money from her bank account and there is nothing to show on record that the Respondent /Complainant ever approached the OP Bank with a written complaint between 24.08.2012 and 05.06.2013. It was on 05.06.2013 that a lawyer’s notice was issued to the OP/Appellant and it was mentioned in the said notice that the Respondent /Complainant updated her pass book ‘a few days ago’ which is not a fact. The Respondent / Complainant , as per her own statement in the petition of complaint , went to the Bank on 24.08.2012 which was about more than 9 months prior to the issue of the legal notice . Such contradictory statements caste doubt about the spirit of the complaint.

     It is true that  the OP Bank did not take the matter so seriously as to verify  the signature of the account holder on the withdrawal slip through an expert. It may be a fact that the counter staff was satisfied about the acceptability of the signature on the withdrawal slip, but since the signature was disputed by the account holder , thereby disowning the signature on the withdrawal slip , it would have been safe on the part of the OP Bank to get the signature verified through an expert for a firm view. Ld. Forum below appears to have emphasized that point together with the fact that the OP Appellant did not send any written reply to the Respondent / Complainant. The decision of the Ld. Forum below remained a presumptive one rather than based on material evidence. The dispute would be conclusively decided, had the withdrawal slip containing the purported signature of the Respondent /Complainant been referred to a handwriting expert for verification and opinion. The case may be sent back to the Ld. Forum below for fresh adjudication on the strength of a verification report by a handwriting expert as regards the signature on the disputed withdrawal slip . In that view of the matter, it would be prudent to hold that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity . The appeal succeeds. Hence,

                                        Ordered

that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest. The impugned order is set aside. The case is sent back on remand to the Ld. Forum below for fresh adjudication after hearing of both parties afresh and having a verification report about the disputed withdrawal slip by a Govt. handwriting expert at the cost of the Appellant /OP .  Parties to appear before the Ld. Forum below on 28.01.2016 for necessary orders. There shall be no separate order as to cost.

       Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Forum below.