PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The above said two cross revision petitions arise from the same impugned order. Sh. Sudarshan Kumar, Complainant opened PPF account with the Opposite Party, the State Bank of India at Moga. The said PPF Account No. 734 was for a period of 15 years. It was to mature in March 2005. Unfortunately, on 02.09.2004, a lady by the name of Veena Rani impersonated herself as Sudesh Rani, the wife of the Complainant/petitioner. Mr. Sudarshan Kumar was the account holder and Sudesh Rani was its nominee. Impostress produced a false/forged death certificate of Sh. Sudershan Kumar and made a request for withdrawal of the money and on the same day the Opposite Party promptly issued Banker’s Cheque No. 354970 for Rs. 6,89058/- on 02.09.2004 was handed over to the said impostress and her companions, in the name of Sudesh Rani, the real nominee. She closed the aforesaid PPF account. 2. As a matter of fact on 16.02.2005, Sudershan Kumar applied for issue of duplicate passbook relating to the said PPF Account because his Chartered Accountant Vivek Jain and his Son Sh. Nitish Jain were avoiding to deliver the original passbook to the complainant on one pretext or the other. On the same day Sudershan Kumar came to know that the aforesaid account had been closed on 02.09.2004 and the entire amount has been paid to the impostress who posed herself as wife of the complainant. Sudershan Kumar appeared before the Bank authorities and contended to have never received the money. It also transpired that the said imposteress deposited the money in the Bank of India in the account of Sudesh Rani and consequently withdrew it from the Bank after her signatures were verified. A criminal case was also registered titled as State Vs Nitish Kumar and Others”. Copy of FIR has been placed on the record which clearly goes to show that 1.Nitish Kumar Jain 2. Vikram Sood 3. Veena Rani 4. Palvinder Singh and Gurwinder Singh (Officials of the Bank) 5. S.S. Bhatti (Bank employee, Bank of India, Moga) have been arrayed in the line of accused persons. 3. During the course of investigation, it also transpired that four other persons were involved. Ram Nath partner of M/s Grover Medical Store, who was maintaining his account with the Bank, Main Bazar, Moga, the second person Mr. Neeraj Garg of M/s Shivalik Automobiles, Village Duneke, Ferozepur Road, Moga, who was dealing with the Bank of OP, Moga Branch and third person Gaurav Jindal who was having a saving bank account with the OP Bank whereas the complainant was having PPF account in question and fourth person Mr. S.P. Uppal (employee of OP Bank), who identified Nitish Kumar Jain, who does not have any account with the OP Bank, signed as witnesses to the signature of impostress or her one of the witnesses. 4. The District Forum rejected the complaint and the State Commission accepted the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs. 6,89058/- to the appellant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order. 5. We have heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner/OP Bank submits that they have taken all the precautions and they got the verification from the identifier. He submits that the appellant has given his original passbook to Sh. Vivek Jain, Accountant. Vivek Jain withheld that passbook for 3 months and ultimately stated that his son Nitish Kumar had stolen that passbook. 6. He also invited our attention towards the agreement entered into by the real Sudesh Rani. The said agreement stipulates:- “1. Sudesh Rani W/o Shri Sudershan Kumar Gupta, am Resident of Mohalla Kishanpura, House No. 614, Moga Tehsil and Distt. Moga, and do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That I made an application bearing No. 1680/PC/4/05 dated 20.10.2005 regarding the payment of money in R.D. Account No. 9902 and PPO Account No. 1100953 against Nitesh Jain son of Shri Vevek Jain, Vivek Jain son of Shri Rajpal Jain Both Residents of Sadha Wali Basti, Sardsar Nagar, Dhaliwal House, Moga. 2. That now the respectable persons have got our dispute compromised. Now I have no objection or complaint against the aforesaid Nitesh Jain and Vivek Jain. 3. That the aforesaid application which I made again the abovesaid persons, may be consigned to the record room.” 7. Again Page No. 164 is regarding the compromise between Sudesh Kumar and Nitish Jain S/o Sh. Vivek Jain signed by Chamkaur Singh S/o Ranjit Singh, Moga. The relevant portion runs as follows:- “It is submitted that an application was submitted by Shrimati Sudesh Rani wife of Shri Sudershan Kumar Resident of Kishan Pura Mohalla, Moga against Nitish Kumar son of Shri Vivek Jain and Vivek Jain son of Shri Rajpal Jain Accountant Residents of Sardar Nagar, Moga, regarding withdrawal of the amount from the Post office R.D. Account No. 9902 and PPO Account No. 1100953, the inquiry of which is being going on before D.S.P(P) Sahib. The right of payment of the amount has also been got done. Now we have compromised the dispute through the respectable persons. Now she has no complaint against us. Please record our compromise. We shall be highly thankful for this.” 8. It is also interested to note that Vivek Jain also gave an undertaking that he would pay the amount of Rs. 3,21,000/- and out of which, he will pay Rs. 1,00000/- by 19.02.2005. The said compromise runs as follows:- “The money withdrawn by my son vide three cheques from Punjab & Sind Bank (details as under) 1. 190000 2. 60000 293000 _______________________ Bank of India Moga Branch 1. 293000 Three Lac twenty one thousand only I owed this money and out of which atleast one lac rupees I will pay by 19.02.2005.” 9. Counsel for the complainant submits that this payment was not paid to the complainant by Vivek Jain or by anyone. He further submits that the pressure was put due to local responsible persons and he has not yet received Rs. 6,89058/-. 10. What one garners from these facts and from this situation, is that the complainant Sudershan Kumar and his wife Sudesh Rani are working in cahoots with the accused persons and others. It is not understood why did they give the original passbook to the Chartered Accountant. It is clear that the Chartered Accountant never ask for original passbook, they ask for photocopies. Secondly, the conduct of the complainant is bizarre. It makes his entire case malafide. It is difficult to fathom as to why the complainant or his wife entered into compromise with the main culprit, if the other responsible persons forced them to enter into the compromise he should have asked them to get his money back. Again, a veil of suspicion covers the case of the complaint in view of affidavit given by his wife Sudesh Rani. It casts an aura of deep suspicion over the transaction. It is not understandable why some of people were given the clean chit by her and some of the people were given to the police. Even the behaviour of the police is notable. They cannot and should not have accepted the compromise in such a serious case. They are not armed with their power. It is transpired that the Court has already rejected the compromise and criminal case is still pending titled as State Vs Nitish Jain and Ors. Nitish Jain vanished into the blue, was never heard again and was declared by the criminal court as an absconder. All these persons had great link with the
Complainant. 11. We are satisfied with the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner/OP-Bank He submits that this death certificate was given to the Bank, which appears to be genuine. He has also drawn our attention towards the PPF Form A filled by Sudershan Kumar. It mentions name of nominee Sudesh Rani but signatures were not obtained on the nomination form as per the practice. Counsel for the petitioner/OP-Bank submits that the Agent system was withdrawn approximately in the year 2000. He submits that they were deligent, got the lady identified by 4 persons. 12. Petitioner has alleged deficiency on part of the OPs. However, the same does not stand proved. It is quite clear that the Bank performed all the formalities. By no stretch of imagination, they can be held liable for anything. We have also perused PPF Form A filled by Sudershan Kumar. It mentions the name of nominee Sudesh Rani but her signatures were not obtained on the mentioned form as per the practice. The Bank also explained that they could not call the Agent Raj Rani, who was the agent at that time. The Agent system was withdrawn approximately in the year 2000. Bank has no option to compare the signature of Sudesh Rani because signatures of Sudesh Rani were never obtained or preserved by the Bank in the case of PPF account. 13. Under these circumstances they called as many as 4 persons to identify Sudesh Rani. It clearly goes to show diligence on the part of the Bank Officers. They were so prompt that they identified impostress after a period of 4 years. They also paid the money through bank draft so that the money goes to the proper hands. The Revision Petition filed by the State Bank of India stands accepted and the Revision Petition filed by Sudershan Kumar is hereby dismissed. Complaint also stands dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. | 
