Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

101/2004

Dagger die cutting - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank - Opp.Party(s)

J.Sivanandaraj

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

   Date of Filing :   08.05.2003

                                                                      Date of Order :   27.07.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                

C.C.NO.101/2004

WEDNESDAY THIS  27^TH   DAY OF JULY 2016

 

Dagger International,

Rep. by its Proprietrix –

Rukhsana Deshpande,

No.31, A5 NP,

Sidco Industrial Estate,

Ambattur, Chennai 600 098.                                   .. Complainant

 

                                         ..Vs..

 

Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank,

Rep. by its Manager,

Grindlays Garden,

1, Haddows Road,

Chennai 600 006.                                              .. Opposite party    

 

 

For the Complainant               :   M/s. J. Sivanandaraaj & others        

For the opposite party             :   M/s. Rangarajan & Prabhakharan

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7,70,400/- towards compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and cost of the complaint to the complainant.

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

The complainant submit that he is running a complaint mentioned Dagger Die Cutting Industry, a proprietor ship firm for which complainant is maintaining a complaint mentioned current account No.28048373 with the opposite party bank from the year 1993.   The complainant further states that she engaged the service of one Rajkumar for the said company in the capacity of an accountant.    Accordingly the said accountant was also entrusted with responsibility of operating and running current account maintained with opposite party bank.   During the month of August 2001 the complainant noticed several irregularities in the said current account maintained with the opposite party bank.  The complainant upon going through the account statements and comparing with the bank statements, cheque books, vouchers realized that the bank statement were not tallying with the records maintained with the complainant, the complainant noticed that there were double entries and for certain cheques there were no counter foil entries.  In certain cases the amounts differs from the records.   Accordingly the complainant requested the opposite party to provide statement of payees into whose accounts the money from the complainant has been credited and also the photo copies of all the cheques that had been issued in the last two years.  Accordingly complainant received certain xerox copies of few cheques issued from the complainant’s account.  Upon traversing the records, the complainant discovered that the accountant has tampered with the accounts and forged several cheques for withdrawing money for his personal gains.  The complainant has filed the Photostat copy of the forged cheques would clearly point out the discrepancy in the signatures, which were very well would be found out when compared with the signatures of the complainant obtained and maintained at the time of opening of the account  and maintained with the opposite party bank.  Whereas the officials of the opposite party bank having duty bound to compare the signature and found out the fraud and to take necessary action, had failed in their duties, but had simply passed / cleared the said cheques.   As such the act of the opposite party  amounts to deficiency of service  which caused monetary loss to the extent of Rs.8,74,105/- to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for refund of said amount by way of re-crediting the said amount in the account with claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the complaint.   Hence the complaint.

Written Version of opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

2.     The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite party submits that the complaint is filed by the complainant on the basis that the complainant’s accountant has forged and encashed the cheques with the opposite party and that the opposite party had acted negligently by honouring those forged cheques.   It is settled law that this Forum exercising summary jurisdiction does not have jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint since complicated question of law and facts are involved.    Therefore if at all, the complainant has any grievance against the opposite party, he has to necessarily approach the Civil Court and not before this forum.  On this ground the complaint has to be dismissed in liminie.    The opposite party  has acted as a dutiful banker and passed the cheques issued by the complainant only after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the signature in the respective cheques.  The opposite party denies the allegation made in the complaint that the complainant had brought to the notice of the opposite party’s Haddows road branch in the month of August 2001 about the irregularity in her current account maintained with the opposite party.   The opposite party has taken all possible and reasonable care required to verify the authenticity of the instrument and there being no element of doubt or suspicion there was no action for the opposite party to refuse clearance of the said cheques drawn by the complainant.  The opposite party never noticed any difference in the signature as alleged in para-10 of the complaint.   The opposite party suspects that the complainant would have given blank signed cheques to its employee who has mis-used the same for his benefit.  For the fraud committed by the complainant employee, the opposite party cannot be made liable to compensate the alleged loss suffered by the complainant.   The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service nor committed any unfair business practice by making false reputation as alleged in the complaint.    All the alleged forged cheques pertain to the month of May, June, July, August and September 2001.   Therefore the complaint filed against the opposite party is barred by limitation   and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

3.   Complainants has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A31 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  Opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to  Ex.21  were marked on the side of the  opposite party.  

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

 

1.   Whether the opposite party has committed  deficiency of

 service  as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.   Whether the complainants are  entitled for the relief sought for

in the complaint?  If so to what extent ?

 

 

5.    POINTS 1 and 2 :

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite party, proof affidavits  filed by both the parties  and the documents Ex.A1 to ExA.31 filed on the side of complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B21 filed on the side of opposite party and considered the arguments.

6.     There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant is running a complaint mentioned Dagger Die Cutting Industry, a proprietor ship firm for which complainant is maintaining a complaint mentioned current account No.28048373 with the opposite party bank from the year 1993.  The complainant engaged the service of one Rajkumar for the said company in the capacity of an accountant.  The said accountant was also entrusted with responsibility of operating and running current account maintained with opposite party bank.  During the month of August 2001 the complainant noticed several irregularities in the said current account maintained with the opposite party bank.  The complainant upon going through the account statements and comparing with the bank statements, cheque books, vouchers realized that the bank statement were not tallying with the records maintained with the complainant, the complainant noticed that there were double entries and for the certain cheques there were no counter foil entries.  In certain cases the amounts differs from the records.  Complainant requested the opposite party to provide statement of payees into whose accounts the money from the complainant has been credited and also the photo copies of all the cheques that had been issued in the last two years.  Accordingly complainant received certain xerox copies of few cheques issued from the complainant’s account.  Upon traversing the records, the complainant discovered that the accountant has tampered with the accounts and forged several cheques for withdrawing money for his personal gains.  The complainant has filed the Photostat copy of the forged cheques would clearly point out the discrepancy in the signatures, which were very well would be found out when compared with the signatures of the complainant obtained and maintained at the time of opening of the account  and maintained with the opposite party bank.  Whereas the officials of the opposite party bank having duty bound to compare the signature and found out the fraud and to take necessary action, had failed in their duties, but had simply passed / cleared the said cheques,  which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party bank, which caused monetary loss to the extent of Rs.7,70,400/- to the complainant, as such complainant filed this complaint  claiming  refund of said amount by way of re-crediting the said amount in the account with claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- under two grounds and also cost.

7.     Whereas the opposite party has resisted the complaint filed by the complainant  stating that the complaint mentioned dispute involves complex issues and complicated questions and facts are involved and require to be decided on volume of evidence, as such, this complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this forum whereas the complainant would have filed an appropriate case before the Civil Court, as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed  and further contended that  according to the bank practice and have passed the cheque issued by the complainant only after satisfying itself  about the genuineness of the signatures in the respective cheques.  The opposite party has taken all possible and reasonable care require to verify the authenticity of the instrument and there being no element of doubt or suspicion and there was no action for the opposite patty to refuse the clearance of the said cheques drawn by the complainant.  The opposite party never noticed any difference in the signature of the complainant  found in the alleged cheques as  alleged in the complaint.  The opposite party is not responsible for the complaint mentioned misappropriation alleged against the said Rajkumar.   As such the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint and not liable to any claim mentioned in the complaint, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.     The complainant has also filed the handwriting expert opinion obtained by its investigation agency on his own instance with regard to the said alleged forged signatures found in the Photostat copy of  cheques Ex.A1 to Ex.A30,  after comparing with admitted signatures of the complainant in the  Ex.B3.  However the way of scrutinization adopted by the handwriting expert cannot be expected from the bank officials while clearing / passing the cheques in respect of the signatures found thereon. Though the report reveals that there was a discrepancy in alleged signatures found in the alleged cheques said to have been forged in the complainant’s accountant, but on mere comparing the  disputed signatures found in the alleged cheques with the admitted signature of the complainant found in the Ex.B3 (The account opening form) on looking  with naked eye, the discrepancy are  found to be with very  slight variations  as in the case of the signatures found in the Ex.B3 itself. 

9.     Further the signature found in the Ex.B3 are said to have been obtained in the year 1993.  The alleged forged signatures relating to Ex.A1 to Ex.A23 are all relating to the year 2000 and 2001, due to the above said lapse of years in the usual course the signatures of the individual may differ slightly is the common admitted theory, as argued by the opposite party’s counsel.  Therefore in the process of clearing the alleged cheques by the opposite party bank cannot be said that they have not taken appropriate steps in comparing the signature while clearing the cheques. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also argued that the bank officials may not be expected to have the skill of handwriting expert in scrutinizing the signatures found in the instrument while in the process of clearing the cheques to check every stroke, turns, curvature, place of joining letters of the bearer of the cheque in normal course of their comparison.

10.    Further it is also pertinent to mention that the complainant himself admitted that the person who was involved for the fraudulent withdrawal  of the amount, on the basis of the forged cheques is of his own accountant who was entrusted to withdraw and maintained the expenditure accounts, petty cash accounts and maintained the account of bank balance.  Further in certain cases the complainant will draw a self cheque in his favour and subsequently make payment to certain parties, even in case of petty cash expenses the complainant will issue self cheque drawn for a lump sum  in which the said accountant will encash and keep the amount in his position.  The said accountant will then pay the petty cash expenses by drawing cash vouchers of his expenses, for all cheques issued for the vendor  are the self cheques the said accountant will record in the cheque book  counter foil  entering the date of issue, name of the payee and the amount withdrawn.  Complainant having entrusted the above mentioned entire financial affairs with regard to the bank account to the accountant to look after, as contended by the opposite party if the complainant would have done checking / verifying his account and the bank balance atleast by end of the every month if not every day, which led to the misappropriation of the money would have been avoided, as such the complainant herself as defaulter in taking atmost care and watch over the duty entrusted to his accountant, which has caused alleged misappropriation is also acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

11.    Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that if the complainant has got grievance if any, against the  bank officials concerned in the process of clearing the alleged cheques, it requires necessary pleadings, the said concern officials of the bank are to be impleaded as parties and consequently it requires volume of evidence to decide the complicated issues arise  thereon.  Therefore, this is not the proper forum to decide such case, since this forum adopts the summary procedure.  But the proper forum would be the Civil Court as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case  C.C.I. Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. .vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 233 72 CD  and as per the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  rendered in the case UCO Bank (Through its Manager)  -vs- Shri S D Wadhawa reported in  2013 (3) CPR 308 NC.

12.    Therefore we are of the considered view that, since, the complaint mentioned facts and circumstances involve complicated and complex questions which require elaborate evidence such disputes are not adjudicated in summary jurisdiction as such the complaint was not maintainable before this forum.  According this complaint is to be dismissed, by giving liberty to the complainant to approach  the appropriate civil court for redressal of the grievance being raised by the complainant in the present complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are to bear their own costs.  Accordingly the points are answered.

In the result,   this complaint is dismissed. However,  the complainant is given liberty to approach the appropriate civil court for redressal of the grievance being raised by the complainant in the complaint. No costs. 

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  27^th    day  of  July   2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                       PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 13.9.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 193818 for Rs.7,042/-

Ex.A2- 1.9.2001        - Copy of Forged cheque 193817  for Rs.14985/-

Ex.A3- 31.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 193814  for Rs.4540/-

Ex.A4- 31.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 482691  for Rs.25,500/-

Ex.A5- 16.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 193818  for Rs.5760/-

Ex.A6- 24.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 482683  for Rs.29970/-

Ex.A7- 16.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 193816  for Rs.14985/-

Ex.A8- 14.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 193811  for Rs.29970/-

Ex.A9- 13.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 193815  for Rs.5760/-

Ex.A10-13.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 193813  for Rs.29970/-

Ex.A11- 6.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 311521  for Rs.16430/-

Ex.A12- 6.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 193812  for Rs.15180/-

Ex.A13- 2.8.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 193810  for Rs.4680/-

Ex.A14- 25.7.2001     - Copy of Forged cheque 193809  for Rs.9468/-

Ex.A15- 25.7.2001     - Copy of Forged cheque 193808  for Rs.15180/-

Ex.A16- 25.7.2001     - Copy of Forged cheque 193806  for Rs.7340/-

Ex.A17- 25.7.2001     - Copy of Forged cheque 193802  for Rs.2,800/-

Ex.A18- 24.7.2001     - Copy of Forged cheque 193605  for Rs.16380/-

Ex.A19- 5.5.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 892057  for Rs.13990/-

Ex.A20- 22.6.2001     - Copy of Forged cheque 380460  for Rs.7020/-

Ex.A21- 5.5.2001      - Copy of Forged cheque 892056  for Rs.9200/-

Ex.A22- 14.7.2001     - Copy of Forged cheque 380461  for Rs.4680/-

Ex.A23- 21.7.2001     - Copy of Forged cheque 193803  for Rs.2000/-

Ex.A24- 21.7.2001     - Copy of Forged Cheque 193804 for Rs.5,760/-

Ex.A25- 25.7.2001     - Copy of forged cheque 193807 for Rs.15,100/-

Ex.A26-         -        - Copy of forged cheque 311516 for Rs.7,020/-

Ex.A27-         -        - Copy of forged cheque 380460 for Rs.7,020/-

Ex.A28-         -        - Copy of forged cheque 311521 for Rs.16,430/-

Ex.A29-         -        - Copy of forged cheque 193605 for Rs.16,380/-

Ex.A30- 16.4.2002     - Copy of forged cheque 799098 for Rs.18,000/-

Ex.A31- 21.11.2007   - Expert opinion issued by M.Manonmani Rajan, Asst., Director

                               Forensic Sciences Depart, Chennai.

 

 

Opposite party’s side documents: -  

 

Ex.B1- 14.10.1993     - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party.

Ex.B2- 14.10.1993     - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party.

Ex.B3- 8.1.2001        - Copy of specimen signature.

Ex.B4-          -        -         - Copy of cheque from complainant to its customer.

Ex.B5- 2.10.2001      - Copy of letter from the complainant to opposite party.

Ex.B6- 15.7.1997      - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party.

Ex.B7- 23.10.1999     - Copy of account opening form from opposite party and complainant.

Ex.B8- 16.3.2000      - Copy of phone banking & doorstep banking registration form.

Ex.B9- 8.1.2001        - Copy of specimen signature opposite party  and complainant.

Ex.B10- 7.10.2001     - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.B11- 2.3.2002      - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party. 

Ex.B12- 4.10.2001     - Copy of deposit account opening form complainant and

                               opposite party.

Ex.B13-         -        - Copy of deposit account opening form complainant and

                               opposite party.

Ex.B14- 7.7.1997      - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.B15-         -        - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.B16-         -        - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.B17-         -        - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.B18- 15.7.1997     - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.B19- 26.7.2007     - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.B20- 27.10.1999   - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.B21- 27.10.1999   - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                    PRESIDENT.