Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban by delivering judgement in Consumer Complaint No.523/2007 on 18/12/2009. As such, original Complainant has filed this appeal.
(2) Complainant had filed consumer complaint against the Respondent – Uco Bank with whom he was having Saving Bank Account. Complainant had gone abroad during the period 18.08.2006 to 04.11.2006. In his absence he kept cheque Books, bank passbooks and ATM Cards in the cupboard in the bedroom by putting lock. In his absence, he had asked maid servant to look after and protect his house. On returning to India, the Complainant found that vide cheque nos.344740 and 548486 amounts of `29,000/- and `10,000/- respectively were withdrawn from his account by making forged signature. From other bank accounts also some amounts were withdrawn by making forgery of the cheques. He, therefore, lodged police complaint. Complainant found that office of the Opponent Bank realized the cheque without verifying the original signature of the Complainant and hence, he filed consumer complaint alleging negligence on the part of the Bank Officials.
(3) The Opponent/Respondent Bank contested the complaint by filing written version. They took a plea that Complainant himself was negligent in not keeping the cheque book at safe and secured place. Officers were not negligent in realizing the cheque. The signatures on the cheques were tallied with the signature on the specimen signature card given by the Complainant. The District Forum while disposing of the complaint held that Complainant himself was negligent in not keeping his cheque book and pass book in proper custody. As per Saving Bank Rules Clause No.2 of the conditions printed on the cheque book, the cheque book should have been kept in a place of safety, under lock and key when he is not present in the house. The District Forum held that the Complainant himself was negligent in not keeping his passbook and cheque book in proper custody and placing all the reliance on the maid servant to whom he had entrusted his whole house for protection. The District Forum also observed that Complainant did not make any effort to refer the disputed signature on the cheque to the handwriting expert for seeking opinion and in the absence of this, it is to be presumed that the cheques presented for encashment were bearing signatures of the Complainant and since they were not kept in lock in key of the Complainant. The District Forum held that there was no negligence on the part of the Respondent Bank in passing the cheques. The District Forum as such was pleased to dismiss the complaint.
(4) We heard submissions of Advocate Ms.Anita Murgude, for the Appellant and Mr.D.S. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent.
(5) We are finding that the order passed by the District Forum is appearing to be just and proper and there was negligence on the part of the Complainant when he had entrusted whole his house to his maid servant for protection when he was in abroad. The maid servant was having keys of the cupboards which were duly locked by the Complainant before going abroad and with the help of those keys it appears to be handy work of maid servant himself to whom Complainant had all the reliance and therefore, the Complainant is to be blamed for this withdrawal and Bank was not negligent in passing cheques. Since Complainant had not procured handwriting expert opinion we have to presume that cheques signed by the Complainant himself were presented by maid servant for encashment when he had gone abroad. In the circumstances, order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and it is sustainable in law. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands summarily rejected at the stage of admission itself.
(ii) Parties to bear their own costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 1st October, 2012.
