Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/103/2014

DR. RAGHAVENNDRA RAO - Complainant(s)

Versus

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., THE MANAGER-IN-CHARGE - Opp.Party(s)

V. RAJENDRAN

22 Feb 2022

ORDER

 

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Tmt. Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI  ... MEMBER

 

F.A. No.103 of 2014

(Against the Order, dated 26.12.2013, in C.C.No.168/13,

on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

                                 

                                  Orders pronounced on:  22.02.2022

            

Dr.Raghavendra Rao and

     Archana Raghavendra Rao,

Rao Hospital, 120, Periaswamy Road West,

R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore 641 002.            … Appellants / Complainants

 

vs.

 

1. The Manager-in-Charge,

Standard Chartered Bank Ltd.,

509, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore 641 002.

 

2. The Regional Head,

Customer Care Unit,

Standard Chartered Bank,

19, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

 

3. The Chief Information

             Security Officer,

Standard Chartered Bank,

90 Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Fort Mumbai 400 009.     … Respondents / Opp. Parties

 

             Counsel for Appellants     : Mr.V.Rajendran

             Counsel for Respondent   : M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam

                                                              

          This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 04.02.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the materials on record and having stood over consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J - President.

             Questioning the Order of dismissal, dated 26.12.2013, passed in C.C. No.168 of 2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation, the aggrieved complainants have come up with the present First Appeal before this Commission.  

 

             2. Brief facts that are necessary to decide the issues involved in the present Appeal are as follows:

             The complainants operated a Savings Bank Account with the 1^st Opposite Party vide S.B. A/c. No.43510019123. There was a debit from the said Account for a sum of Rs.5 lakh, said to be an RTGS payment, by Cheque No.916763, dated 01.12.2010, remitted in favour of one Vijay Footwear with the ICICI Bank, Bareilly Branch, Uttar Pradesh.  As the said cheque, authorizing the debit, was not signed by the Account Holder and the drawer’s signature was forged, apart from taking criminal action, the complainants resorted to the proceedings before the consumer forum, since they suffered huge financial loss due to deficiency of service by the 1^st Opposite Party/bank in having debited the said sum from the complainant’s account over an unauthorized transaction in a grossly unlawful manner, violating all banking practices that should not have been followed. A forged drawer’s signature cannot convey any title and hence, the cheque in question cannot be a basis for Opposite Party No.1 to debit the sum involved. Moreover, not only the drawer’s signature but also the RTGS Application for fund transfer has been forged and the account holders never signed any such application. Any prudent banker would have certainly verified with the account holder about the nature and genuineness of the transaction and the Branch Official could have and should have cross-checked with the account holder before effecting the transfer.  Further, the statement of the Opposite Parties, in their letter dated 09.02.2012, to the effect that they would assure their support to the police in their investigation is not an obligation or service rendered to the complainants, but, it is a matter of absolute legally bound duty of any Banker.  Even the legal notice, dated 09.11.2012, sent to the Opposite Party has been replied as if the legal notice itself is only a routine complaint from a customer. The said reply, dated 22.11.2012, obviously without any application of mind and without reading into the contents of the notice, itself bears ample testimony to the level of customer service rendered by the Opposite Parties/Bank.  By stating that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the Bank, the complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.12,12,500/-, as detailed in the calculation given therein.

             The Opposite Parties resisted the same by filing a common written version, wherein, among other things, it is stated thus:-

               The account in question was admittedly being used for the business requirements of Rao Hospital, where the complainants claim to be partners. Nowhere in the pleadings, they whispered that their bank account was used for the purpose of self-employment or earning livelihood.     When admittedly the services of the Opposite Parties have been availed for commercial purposes, the complainants cannot be termed as ‘consumers’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act; as such; the complaint deserves dismissal in limini. 

       Further, the complaint, dated 17.01.2013, is hopelessly barred by limitation, as it was filed much beyond the 2 year limitation period  prescribed in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complaint should be rejected at the very outset for the further reason that intricate questions of fact raised by the complainants on merits cannot be adjudicated because the trial would require voluminous documentary and oral evidence including cross-examination of various witnesses and experts, which cannot be done in the course of summary proceedings before consumer forum.  The Bank had accepted the RTGS Application for the subject account as well as the cheque for Rs.5 Lakh only after proper verification, comparison and confirmation of the signatures found in those documents with the records available in the Bank.  These transactions were given effect to by the Bank in the normal course of business in a strictly bona fide and professional manner, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.  On exercise of due care and skill to be possessed by a person employed in the Banking Sector, the signatures in the allegedly forged documents were found similar to the samples available in the Bank Records.  No Banker with ordinary or reasonable care and skill could have concluded that the signatures in the present case were forged.  It is only an appropriate forensic expert, commanding extraordinary talent and skill and who can highly analyse similar signatures with sophisticated equipment, can alone determine the question of alleged forgery.   The Opposite Parties had exercised sufficient, reasonable and appropriate care & skill in verifying the signatures found in the application.  Without going into the validity of the complainants’ claim that the signatures were forged and without prejudice to the Opposite Parties right to contest such claim, it is submitted that the possibility of forgery in this case could not have been detected by mere exercise of reasonable care and skill.   By stating that there is no material to allege any deficiency of service on their part, the Opposite Parties sought the District Forum to dismiss the complaint at the threshold.

    

3. To substantiate the claim and counter-claim, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits before the District Forum and, on the side of the complainants, 7 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A7, while the Opposite Parties marked 15 documents as Exs.B1 to B15.The District Forum, after consideration, found that the complaint is hit by limitation and accordingly, dismissed the same; aggrieved thereby, the complainants have come up with the present First Appeal.

 

4.  

 

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/Bank would submit that the appellants cannot make out any case on merits owing to the fact that the respondents had exercised sufficient and reasonable care and skill in verifying the signatures found in the application and in the cheque before allowing the transaction to go through.Even for the sake of argument if the allegation is true, it is only a forensic expert, commanding extraordinary talent and skill, can alone analyze the signature so as to determine any forgery.At any rate, any exercise to go into the merits of the case would require adjudication upon intricate questions of fact that cannot be done in the present summary proceedings.Even otherwise to pursue any claim before this Commission, the appellants have no scope, since the very complaint is hit by limitation.Thus, the impugned order perfectly being in order, both factually and legally, the same does not call for any interference by this Commission, he pleaded.

 

6. We have perused the impugned order passed by the District Forum and carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side.At the first instance, we intend to straight away deal with the limitation point, without deciding which, it would be only a futile exercise to go into the merits of the case.In other words, whether or not to go into the merits depends upon the conclusion about limitation.

 

7.  

Now, in between these two diametrically opposite segments,an incidental question that needs to be answered is, as to under what circumstances an act of wrong or injury that gives rise to a cause of action can be deemed to be a continuing one.

 

8.  

 

9. In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit, confirming the impugned order, dated 26.12.2013, passed by the DCDRF, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.168 of 2013. No costs.

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                              R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT.

 

Index    :  Yes  / No.

ISM/SCDRC/Chennai/Feb/2022.