Smt. Syeda Shahnur Ali, President-in-Charge
In brief, the facts of Complainant’s case are that his minor child is having a savings account bearing no. 2954001500148267 with the OP bank. Since the concerned passbook got misplaced on 26-08-2015, the Complainant got in touch with the OP on 28-08-2015 and a duplicate passbook was issued by the OP on 03-09-2015. Subsequently, when he tried to withdraw money from the said account, to his utter surprise, he came to know that money has already been withdrawn from the concerned bank account. It is alleged by the Complainant that officials of the bank illegally withdrew money from her daughter’s account. Feeling dejected, he took up the matter with different authorities, but in vain. Hence, the case.
On the other hand, it is the case of the OP that, on due scrutiny of the withdrawal slip, it was discovered that the money had been withdrawn by the Complainant’s daughter herself. In fact, the CCTV footage also confirmed such fact. OP has denied any wrongdoing on the part of its staff and prayed for dismissal of this case.
It is to be decided whether or not the Complainant is entitled to any relief.
Decision with reasons
Both sides have filed bunch of papers in support of their respective cases. We have carefully gone through the same and also heard the Complainant and the Ld. Lawyer of the OP with attentive interests.
The pivot of present case hovers around the fact whether Complainant’s daughter had indeed withdrew Rs. 1,500/- from her bank account on 01-09-2015, as alleged by the OP.
It is stated by the OP that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was handed over to the account holder, Susama Shee against discharge of withdrawal slip by her and photocopy thereof has been placed on record by the OP. Although on a bird’s eye view of the same, nothing unusual is seen; but step nearer, one’s probing eyes must pause, get locked.
Incidentally, the OP has placed on record photocopy of the form containing specimen signatures of the accountholder, Miss Susama Shee which is signed only in Bengali language. On a comparison of the signature as appended in the purported withdrawal slip dated 01-09-2015 vis-à-vis specimen signature form, we find palpable difference in between the same. We must state, the difference is so widely visible even in bare eyes that we did not feel the necessity of referring the matter to any handwriting expert to affirm the genuineness/authenticity of the signature as appended in the purported withdrawal slip placed on record from the side of the OP.
In this regard it bears mentioning that, as a trustee of account-holders’ money, it is incumbent upon the bank to remain extremely vigilant before disbursing money from the account of an account-holder to the claimant to prevent unauthorized/illegal withdrawal of money from the concerned account. It is indeed surprising, despite such visible disparity in the signature, how it passed muster the scrutiny of the concerned official of OP bank.
Be it a mere coincidence or otherwise, another intriguing fact that we notice with the withdrawal slip is that counter sign of the claimant in vernacular was obtained only once on the back side of the withdrawal slip although it is common practice among banks to obtain signature of the drawer on the back side of the withdrawal slip/cheque twice.
True, the withdrawal slip contains signature of the drawer in English too. However, given the fact that the OP does not possess specimen signature of the account holder in English, it was futile to insist on putting her signature in English. It may be worth mentioning here that in order to ascertain the veracity of OP’s allegation, the account holder, i.e., Complainant’s daughter was asked to put her signature before us and as per our direction, she put her signature on a piece of paper – both in Bengali and English. Even a comparison of the signature of the Complainant’s daughter on the withdrawal slip and her signature that she executed before us, we did not find any parity. This clearly points out gross laxity on the part of the concerned official of the OP bank.
It is claimed by the OP that inspection of CCTV footage by its official revealed that the account-holder personally visited the bank on 01-09-2015 to withdraw money from the account. Surprisingly, no such footage is made available to us to uncover the truth. It is contended by the OP that since the Complainant did not ask for the CCTV footage within 90 days from the date of incident, it was presumed by the OP that the Complainant was not interested to have access to the same and as per the banking policy of the OP, footage of the CCTV gets rewritten after the lapse of 90 days. So, it expressed its inability to provide any copy thereof to the Complainant who applied for CCTV footage on the 91st day, i.e., on 30-11-2015.
It appears from the copy of communiqué dated 13-10-2015 that the Complainant informed the matter to the higher authorities under copy to the OP. It further transpires from the documents on record that the Complainant also referred the matter to the Banking Ombudsman, who vide its letter dated 20-11-2015 confirmed having taken up the matter with the concerned bank. So, it can reasonably be presumed that the OP was fully aware of the fact that the matter was pending before the Banking Ombudsman. The conduct of OP does raise eyebrows that despite being fully aware of the fact that the Complainant had petitioned before different authorities, including the Banking Ombudsman, it did not feel the necessity of preserving a copy of the CCTV footage dated 01-09-2015.
On the other hand, the Complainant has filed a certificate issued by the Teacher-in-Charge of Raghunathbari Ramtarak High School dated 16-11-2015 confirming that Susama Shee, daughter of the Complainant attended the school on 01-09-2015. Needless to say, one cannot remain present simultaneously at the bank and school on the same day. We feel, this is sufficient proof to put the dispute at rest.
Thus, on one hand, we come across documentary proof from the side of the Complainant confirming the presence of the account holder, Susama Shee at her school on 01-09-2015 and on the other, OP cuts a sorry figure to present any documentary/material proof to confirm the presence of Complainant’s daughter at the bank on that day. Above all, the gross mismatch in the signature, as discussed hereinabove, makes a hollow of OP’s claim as regards disbursement of cash to the bona fide account-holder.
Last but not the least, there is one more piece of puzzle that haunts us to a great extent. As per convention, Banks tend to insist on presenting the passbook at the counter while drawing money from the account through withdrawal slip. It is not in dispute that the Complainant’s daughter misplaced the concerned passbook on 26-08-2015 and the matter was intimated to the bank on 28-08-2015. It is also not in dispute that a duplicate pass book was issued to the concerned account holder on 03-09-2015. Then the question survives, why did the concerned staff allowed withdrawal of money from the account of Complainant’s daughter without the concerned passbook.
Thus, on a thoughtful consideration of the facts in its entirety, we have no qualms holding that the factum of drawal of money from the account of the Complainant’s daughter by the bona fide account holder remains unproven. Rather, materials on record brings to fore gross laxity on the part of the concerned staff of the OP bank in ensuring proper safety and security of the bona fide account holder causing great inconvenience to the account holder and her father, i.e., the Complainant. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to direct the OP to reimburse the loss suffered by the Complainant’s daughter together with compensation and litigation cost.
Consequent thereof, the present complaint case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
that C. C. No. 32/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. OP is directed to credit the account of Complainant’s daughter with Rs. 1,500/- within a period of 30 days henceforth and also pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost, respectively, to the Complainant within the afore mentioned stipulated time frame. In default, Complainant would be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law in which case, OP shall be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 150/- per diem from this day till compliance of this order in toto.
