Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas dated 14-03-2016 passed in CC/471/2015, this Appeal is moved by Axis Bank Ltd.

Facts, as narrated in the petition of complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant issued two cancelled cheques bearing nos. 258682 and 258683 to facilitate cancellation of one Insurance Policy.  Unfortunately, using those cheques, thanks to the laches on the part of the OPs, a total sum of Rs. 6,30,250/- was withdrawn from the account of the Complainant behind his back. So, the instant complaint case was filed by the Complainant.

The OPs, on the other hand, submitted that on receipt of two duly signed cheques and there being no stop payment instruction in place, the same were cleared as per banking norm.  The OPs denied any deficiency in service in this regard on their part.

Decision with reasons

We have heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the documents on record, including the citations referred to by them. 

It is the positive case of the Respondent that he did not put his signature on the disputed cheques.  It appears that, for the purpose of ascertaining the authenticity of the disputed signatures, the cheques in question were sent to the CID, Govt. of West Bengal who found disparity in respect of the specimen signature of the Respondent vis-à-vis signatures as contained in the disputed cheques. 

In this regard, drawing our attention to an authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court [Bank of Maharashtra v. Automotive Engineering Co., 1993 (2) SCC 97], Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant emphasized that reasonable care was taken by the concerned bank officials to verify the signature of the Respondent as contained in the concerned cheques and the same was tallied with the specimen signature card kept in the bank and after being fully satisfied about the apparent tenor of the said cheques, the same were cleared.  Thus, the Bank, according to the Ld. Advocate, cannot be held guilty in any manner whatsoever.

It is inexplicable, however, as to why the Appellant did not attach the concerned specimen signature card containing the signature of the Respondent to satisfy us about the bona fide of Appellants’ sincerity of purpose in the matter.

It also appears that, to clamp down on cheque related deception cases, the RBI, way back in the year 2014, made it mandatory for banks to alert account-holders by phone calls/contact the base branch in case of none-home cheques before clearing high value cheques.  The Regulator further asked banks to invariably send SMS to the issuer of cheques and examine under the UV lamp the cheques if their value exceed Rs. 2,00,000/-. No doubt, had these precautionary steps been taken by the Appellants, the unwarranted incident could be nipped in the bud.  

All these, surely, point out severe laches on the part of the Appellants.  Accordingly, we are of opinion that by squarely holding the Appellants responsible to make good the loss of the Respondent, the Ld. District Forum committed no factual or legal infirmity.

The Appeal appears to be bereft of any merit.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.