DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.541/2009
Shri Sandeep Choudhary,
S/o Shri Chander Prakash,
DW-04, Nirvana Country
Sector-50, Gurgaon-122018
Haryana. ….Complainant
Versus
- State Bank of India
Through its General Manager
Local Head Office,
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001
- State Bank of India
Through its Branch Manager
C1/5A, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053
- HDFC Bank Ltd.
Through its Manager
Ground Floor G-83,
Vikas Marg, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110051 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 11.06.2009
Date of Order : 02.02.2018
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant had dropped one cheque bearing No. 726018 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 04.04.2009 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi in the drop box of the bank of the OP-3 on 06.04.2009 as the complainant is having the account with the OP-3. The complainant received a message through internet banking that the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- had not been credited to his account. On close scrutiny, the complainant came to know that a bank account No. SB 20027791649 had been opened in the name of the complainant and the amount of the above cheque had been credited in the above account. Complainant has been cheated by the defective procedure of the OPs as OP-2 has opened the account without any verification without his fault. Complainant lodged a complaint in the police Station Preet Vihar, but the police did not move to support the complainant. Complainant also addressed a letter dated 30.04.2009 to the OPs and concerned authorities. Complainant also visited the bank of OP-2 and the branch manager Mr. R.K. Kapoor informed him that the complainant’s account No. SB 20027791649 in the name of Mr. Sandeep Choudhary had been opened with the forged documents and without any introduction from the existing account holder. The amount had been withdrawn by the fraudster accountholder. The branch manager gave the excuse of heavy rush in the said branch. It is submitted that there is great lapses on the part of OP-3 because the cheque had been stolen from the drop box of OP-3. It amounts to complete negligence on the part of OP-3 because the consumer always drops the cheque in the drop box on the good faith of OP-3. OP-3 did not place any security for the cheques deposited by the account holders in the drop box in collusion with its staff and miscreants thereby allowing removal of cheque meant for credit to accounts of the account holders and OP-2 had allowed opening of bank account on the basis of forged documents without due compliance of KYC (Know Your Customer) norms mandatory as per guidelines of RBI. OP-1 has rendered deficient services by not recovering the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from OP-2 and crediting the same to the account of the complainant as OP-2 has failed to show that the amount was credited to a proper account of the complainant or produce the person to whose account OP-2 had credited the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Due to callous and negligent attitude of the OPs the complainant has been made to suffer for deficient services rendered by the OPs. Therefore, the OPs are negligent for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs. Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to make payment of the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant, to pay interest @ 24% per annum from 04.04.2009 till the date of payment, to compensate to the complainant for harassment.
OP-1 and OP-2 in the reply have inter-alia stated that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint since the matter even according to the complainant is under investigation by police/ investigating agencies and, therefore, complaint is premature and not maintainable in law. It is further submitted that till the matter is finally investigated by the police and culprits are brought to record, the present complaint amounts to an attempt to subvert the due process of law. It is not denied that Shri Sandeep Choudhary, the complainant is maintaining his bank account No. SB20027791649 with OP-2 and amount of cheque No. 726018 for Rs.4,00,000/- was credited in his account in due course. It is denied that the complainant had been cheated due to defective procedure of OP-1 and OP-2. It is denied that the account in the name of Shri Sandeep Choudhary had been opened by OP-2 without following banking guidelines or without obtaining identity proof of the account holder. It is stated that even according to the averments made in the complaint, the complainant is not the customer of the OP No.1 and 2 hence complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.1 and 2. It is submitted that since the matter complained of contains the elements of fraud and impersonation which are criminal offence and are to be investigated and tried by proper legal authorities/ competent court and not by this Forum. The complaint is not maintainable before this forum. OP-1 & OP-2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP-3 in reply has inter-alia stated that the alleged cheque was never dropped in the drop box of the OP No.3. Had it been dropped in the drop box of OP No.3, then the pay in slip must have been of OP No.3. All activities with regard to collection of the cheque are done under dual custody and supervision of the bank officials and only the authorized custodian can have access to the cheque dropped in drop boxes. Thereafter the cheques are counted and noted in the cheque drop box register. There is no chance at all that the cheques are stolen or misplaced in transit because of very safe and secured collection system from the drop boxes and as such it is clearly established that the complainant had never dropped the cheque as alleged in the drop box, maintained with OP-3 and it appears that the complainant himself had lost the cheque somewhere and later on when he came to know about the cheque having been encashed by some unscrupulous person, he had taken this false stand of dropping the cheque in the drop box of OP-3. The entire responsibility for the payment of the cheque in question lies on the paying banker, OP-2 where the alleged account was opened and the cheque was processed and cleared. The OP No.3 cannot be held liable to make the payment or for any liability as claimed by the complainant, that is why no question arises for any negligence or deficiencies in the services on the part of the OP No.3 or its officials. The complaint is a matter relating to the fraud and cheating established by the representation of the complainant himself addressed to the SHO Preet Vihar, Delhi and duly received at the P.S. vide D No. 37-B dated 23.04.2009. Therefore, the present matter cannot be disposed off by way of summary trial, and requires detailed criminal investigation. It is submitted that the examination of the concerned witnesses is mandatory for disposing of such like matters, before the competent court of law, having jurisdiction over the same i.e. the civil courts. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 & OP-2. It is stated that complainant is not maintaining any account with the either of the OPs. OPs have failed to show as to how they had complied with KYC norms and guidelines for monitoring newly opened bank accounts. It is submitted that OPs have failed to show as to how all the mandatory KYC norms and guidelines for monitoring newly opened accounts had been adhered to.
Complainant has also filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-3.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. P.R. Suneria, Branch Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP-1 & OP-2 and affidavit of Sh. K.Mishra, Branch Manager has been filed on behalf of OP-3.
Written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
As per averments made in the affidavit of the complainant the copy of the counter foil of pay-in-slip in respect of the cheque dropped in the drop box of OP No.3 bank on 06.04.09 is Annexure C-1 which is infact the copy of a pay-in-slip of SBI, G.T. Road, Shahdara Delhi -110032. The same is dated 06.04.09. Vide this pay-in-slip the cheque bearing No.726018 for an amount of Rs.4 lacs drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi has been deposited for credit in the bank account No.20027791649 of Mr. Sandeep Choudhary. This is the same bank account no. which according to the complainant had been opened by some fraudster with OP No.2 in his name. When the said cheque had been deposited in G.T. Road, Shahdara Delhi Branch of the SBI how could it be deposited in the drop box of OP No.3 at Preet Vihar on the same very day. While stating this fact he placed reliance on the pay-in-slip dated 06.04.09 of HDFC Bank by which cheque No. 726018 for an amount of Rs.4 lac drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi has been deposited for credit in account No. 01291000015891 of Mr. Sandeep Choudhary. Both the pay-in- slips are in respect of the same cheque bearing No.726018 for an amount of Rs.4 lacs drawn on IOB (Indian Overseas Bank), Preet Vihar Branch. We mark the copy of pay-in-slip of HDFC Bank as Mark A for the purposes of proper identification. Therefore, a great suspicion has arisen in the genuineness of the claim of the complainant as to whether he had deposited the said cheque with SBI, G.T. Road, Shahdara Delhi or had dropped it in the drop box of OP No.3 at Preet Vihar Delhi. Therefore, the opening of the forged bank account in the name of the complainant with OP No.2 Bank has also become very doubtful.
Secondly, according to the complainant, he had come to know about the said cheque on or about 13.06.09 as stated in the police complaint dated 23.04.09 copy of which is Annexure C-2. Despite this, the complainant did not lodge the police report before 23.04.09. Why did he take 10 days in making the police complaint? In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ten days delay on the part of the complainant in making the police complaint is highly fatal to his case. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the case of the complainant is not free from serious doubts and suspicion and possibilities cannot be ruled out that it is the complainant who has cooked up the entire story for some ulterior motives. Hence, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved on the part of either of the OPs.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 02.02.2018.
