BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 22/11.
THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Syed Meer Anwar S/o. Late Syed Habeebur
Rehaman, Age: 44 years, Occ: Revenue
Inspector, Tahasil Office, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office, Gun
Foundry Road, Hyderabad.
2. Regional Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Mantralaya Road, Raichur.
3. State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Lohar Wadi, Raichur, by its Branch Manager.
4. The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Gulbarga.
CLAIM : For to direct them to pay an amount of Rs.
1,37,321/- with interest, damages and cost.
Date of institution :- 22-03-11.
Notice served :- 30-03-11.
Date of disposal :- 04-08-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. C.S. Rastapur, Advocate.
Opposite Nos. 1 to 4 represented by Sri. I.M. Patil, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Syed Meer Anwar against the opposites 1 to 4 officers of State Bank of Hyderabad U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay an amount of Rs. 1,37,321/- with interest, damages and cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he is the eldest son of late Amathnnisa Begum. She was getting pension due to death of her husband Syed Habeebur Rehaman. Her pension Account No. 1063/RCR with OSB A/c No. 52075533184 in the Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad opposite No-3. Smt. Amathnnisa Begum died on 08-04-2009, at the time of her death, she was having balance of Rs. 1,37,321/- in her account. After her death, complainant and other Lrs of deceased made enquiry with opposite No-3 regarding the outstanding amount in her account. They noticed malafide withdrawal of Rs. 43,000/- on 30-06-09, Rs. 30,000/- on 23-07-09 and Rs. 32,500/- on 20-08-09 by way of cheques after her death. Complainant’s or other legal heirs of deceased not drawn the said amount through cheques. They enquired with Opposite Nos. 1 to 4, but no proper steps taken for to make payment of the outstanding amount in the account of deceased. All of them shown their negligence in making payment, hence this complaint is filed against all the opposites for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.
3. After the appearance of opposite Nos. 1 to 4, they filed written version by denying the allegations made by the complainant. It is contended that, the death of Amathnnisa Begum was not intimated to the bank on 09-06-09. The cheques bearing Nos. 922305 for Rs. 43,000/-, 922304 for Rs. 30,000/- and 922306 for Rs. 32,500/- were paid respectively by verifying the signatures of the account holder and found that, it was tallied with the signatures of the passed cheques. Bank took all precautions before passing these cheqeus, hence there cannot be any negligence on its part. As per the request of complainant, bank paid the balance amount to the legal heirs of deceased. All other allegations made by the complainant in this regard are specifically denied and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, his mother Amathnnisa Begum was drawing pension from opposite No-3 SBH Bank, Branch Raichur in PPO.No. 1063/RCR and A/c.No. OSB 52075533184. Later on she died on 08-04-09 having a balance amount of Rs. 1,37,321/- in her account. Thereafter complainant informed the death of Amathnnisa Begum on 09-06-09 through his letter and requested opposite No-3 to stop the transaction of the said account, but opposite No-3 negligently made payment of Rs. 43,000/- on 30-06-09, Rs. 30,000/- on 23-07-09 and Rs. 32,500/- on 20-08-09 through cheqeus presented by somebody even though the account was not operative, thereafter complainant requested to make the payment of outstanding amount in the account of Amathnnisa Begum as on date of her death, but opposite shown their negligence and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed and he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of chief manager of SBH was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked.
7. In the instant case, some of the undisputed facts between the parties are:-
1. It is undisputed fact that, deceased Amathnnisa Begum was drawing her family pension in opposite No-3 SBH, bank having PPO No. 1063/RCR in OSB A/c. bearing No. 52075533184.
2. It is undisputed fact that, the said Amathnnisa Begum died on 08-04-09.
3. It is further undisputed fact that, opposite No-2 Manager SBH, Raichur encashed three cheques, among them (1) cheque encashed for Rs. 43,000/- on 30-06-09 bearing No. 922305, (2) cheque was encashed for Rs. 30,000/- on 23-07-09 vide cheque No. 922304 and (3) cheque bearing No. 992306 for Rs. 32,500/- on 20-08-09 from the account of Amathnnisa Begum.
8. In view of these undisputed facts, now we are very much clear that, the said three cheqeus encashed on different dates as mentioned above by opposite No-3 bank after the death of account holder Amathnnisa Begum, because, the date of death of her on 08-04-09, is undisputed date of death.
9. Document Ex.P-11, which is a copy of FIR bearing No. 328/10 was registered by police in respect of fraudulent drawal of three cheqeus U/sec. 417, 419, 465, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC on the complaint of one Sharanappa employee of Opposite No-3 SBH Bank on 30-04-10. In the said complaint it is clearly stated by him that, those three cheqeus presented and got encashed on different dates by making forging signatures of deceased Amathnnisa Begum after her death and the said fact was noticed by the bank while incorporating the documents in new system as they have compared the signature of Amathnnisa Begum taken at the time of issuing passbook with signatures of the encashed cheques. Further it is clear from the complaint that, the opposite No-3 bank not verified the signature of Amathnnisa Begum to the signatures of the said cheqeus on different dates at the time of making payment on those cheques.
10. Keeping in view of these facts, we have gone through the facts stated by these opposites in Para-5 of their written version.
11. From the facts pleaded in the said Para, opposite No-3 bank verified the signature of the account holder Amathnnisa Begum and found it was tallied with passed cheqeus. The bank took all precautions before passing these cheqeus. Therefore bank cannot be said to be negligent in passing cheques. This pleading is quite contrary to the facts noted in the complaint filed by the bank employee in Ex.P-11. Written statement filed with the above said contentions by the opposites on 06-06-11 as a counter to the complainant might be after thought with an intention to jerk their negligence on the others shoulders. As such we have not accepted the contention of opposite Nos. 1 to 4 that, they have verified the signature of the account holder with the signatures on the said cheqeus and found tallied and thereafter they have passed cheques. Hence the process adopted by the opposite Bank for encashing those cheqeus is a clear cut act of negligence of it. Other explanations given by the learned advocate for opposites cannot be accepted as true and correct.
12. The second point for our consideration is, whether complainant and other legal heirs of deceased have intimated the death of Amathnnisa Begum to opposite No-3 to stop the transaction pertaining to her account before withdrawal.
13. According to complainant, he intimated opposite No-3 regarding the death of Amathnnisa Begum through his letter Ex.P-4 dt. 09-06-09 along with death certificate, with request to stop the transaction pertaining to her account.
14. According to opposites, complainant submitted death claim form Ex.P-6 only on 15-09-09 not on 09-06-09, thereafter bank came to know the fraudulent withdrawal of the amount in the account of Amathnnisa Begum therefore they stopped payment and started investigation of fraudulent withdrawal as stated in Para-10 on Page No. 2 & 3 of their written version.
15. To ascertain the real facts, we have read the contents of letter Ex.P-4, claim form Ex.P-6 and copy of FIR Ex.P-11 filed by the bank official before the police on 30-04-10. The facts noted in FIR Ex.P-11 discloses the fact that, bank came to the knowledge of fraudulent withdrawal and sources of the information to the bank are not in accordance with the facts noted in Para-5 of written version. It is admitted fact by the bank that, it came to knowledge of the death of Amathnnisa Begum only on 15-09-09, when complainant submitted claim form Ex.P-6, if it is a real fact, then why bank made such delay from 15-09-09 to 30-04-10 to file a police complaint regarding such fraudulent withdrawal by bank employee or outsider. Reasons for such act not assigned in Ex.P-11. Ex.P-4 letter having the signature of one person regarding the receipt of it, it might be the bank employee who received Ex.P-4 on 09-06-09 with initials, now, bank is shifting its stand that, it came to know only on 15-09-09 or as stated in FIR Ex.P-11. Hence, we are of the clear view that, the theory put forwarded by the bank to defend itself is not consistent. In written version they have stated different facts and in Ex.P-11 they have stated different facts. Hence such stand taken by the opposites is not acceptable as they came to know the death of Amathnnisa Begum only at the time of filing claim form Ex.P-6 dt. 15-09-09.
16. Our above stand is supported by other documents of the bank Ex.R-2 it is said to be a letter of the complainant dt. 02-12-09 and Ex.R-3 joint letter of legal heirs of Amathnnisa Begum dt. 02-12-09 and alleged statement by the complainant before the police vide Ex.R-4 regarding the receipt of an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-. On collective reading of these documents we are very much surprise to express our view that, opposite bank intentionally created these documents to over come its negligence while withdrawal of the amount from those fraudulent cheqeus, if really complainant settled his claim by taking an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- vide his letter Ex.R-4, then what was necessary for the opposite bank to file complaint before the police as per FIR Ex.P-11 on 30-04-10 and whey bank has not stated of those facts in its FIR Ex.P-11. The police came to picture only after filing Ex.P-11, there was no occasion for the police to handle the matter prior to filing of Ex.P-11. As such, we are of the view that, documents produced by the bank are created documents by opposite to over come the negligence of it. Hence this contention is not at all acceptable on any counts.
17. Opposite Bank cannot justify itself by saying that, the amount pertaining to those cheques paid to the complainant by referring documents Ex.R-2, Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 for the reasons that, who paid that huge amount whether bank itself paid the amount then, why it not produced Statement of Account Extract to show that, on such and such day, the said amount was paid to the complainant or it was credited to the account of deceased. Hence Ex.R-2, Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 are also not helping the bank in any way to escape from its liability.
18. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, with relevant documents, it is proved fact by the complainant that, opposite bank is intending to suppress the real facts with regard to fraudulent withdrawal of the amount through said three cheques on 30-06-09, 23-07-09 and on 20-08-09 from the account of deceased Amathnnisa Begum, even though it had knowledge of the death of Amathannisa Begum as on 08-04-09 and intimated it through the letter of complainant dt. 09-06-09 Ex.P-4. The said act of opposite Bank is a clear cut case of negligence of it in encashing those cheqeus and also it is a clear case that, bank as shown its negligence in considering the grievance of the complainant and other legal heirs of deceased Amathnnisa Begum, after bringing the fraudulent withdrawal to its knowledge as such all the opposites are jointly and severally responsible for it.
19. As regards to the reliefs as prayed by the complainant are concerned, total fraudulent withdrawal amount through three cheqeus is Rs. 1,05,000/- now, the balance amount outstanding in the account of deceased is Rs. 31,281/-, hence complainant and other legal heirs of deceased Amathnnisa Begum are entitled for total amount of Rs. 1,37,321/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite that, complainant is not entitled for any amount by way of compensation as he is not sustained any loss he received the said amount vide documents Ex.R-2, Ex.P-8, & Ex.P-9, we have very much clear that, those documents are concocted documents in the hands of bank. Hence the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite in this regard is not accepted, as such, complainant and other legal heirs of deceased Amathnnisa Begum are entitled for Rs. 1,37,321/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally.
20. Apart from that amount complainant and other legal heirs of deceased are also entitled to get amount of Rs. 3,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally under the head of deficiency in service and they are also entitled for Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this litigation. As such complainant and other legal heirs of deceased are totally entitled for Rs. 1,43,321/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. All of them are also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said total sum from 09-06-09, which is the date of intimation of the death of Amathnnisa Begum vide letter Ex.P-4 till realization of the full amount. Hence we answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly.
POINT NO.3:-
21. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed with cost.
The complainant and other legal heirs of deceased Amathnnisa Begum are entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 1,43,321/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally.
They are also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 09-06-09 till realization of the full amount.
Opposites are hereby granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment for to make the payment.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 04-08-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
