Complaint Filed on:01.10.2013 |
Disposed on:20.11.2019 |
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN
20th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019
PRESENT:- | SRI. S.L PATIL | PRESIDENT |
| SMT. P.K SHANTHA | MEMBER |
Complainant/s: -
Sri.R.Guruprasad
S/o Late S.Revanna,
Aged about 48 years
R/at No.14, A Cross,
Pipeline, Bahubalinagar, Jalahalli,
Bengaluru-13
By Adv.Sri.V.Lakshmaiah
V/s
Opposite party/s:-
- The Chairman
UCO Bank
HO.10,
BTM Sarani,
Kolkata-001.
- The Manager
UCO Bank
Jalahalli Branch,
Bengaluru-13.
By Adv.Sri.K.R.Parashuram
ORDER
SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party no.1 & 2 (herein after called as OPs) to debit an amount of Rs.25,000/- which has been withdrawn by a stranger; to investigate the complaint; to pay cost of Rs.15,000/-; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to award such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The Complainant submits that, he is the SB account holder of the OP bank. While examining the pass book entries, he noticed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was withdrawn by using the cheque no.372122. Immediately he had written a letter on 31.12.12 stating that he has no knowledge of possessing the cheque book bearing no.372121 to 372140 and may be stopped for payment, in case any one may misuse. On enquiry and verification by OP.2 it revealed that the said amount has been withdrawn through the said cheque dtd.27.12.12 by one Smt.Sunitha.R through her banker Karnataka Bank ltd., Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru. In this context, he wrote a letter dtd.24.02.13 clarifying that he did not issue any cheques to this woman, who is the stranger, action may be taken in verifying the antecedents and the amount withdrawn may please be put into his account. Further requested to furnish the copy of the cheques encashed to know as to whether the said cheque has been issued by the Complainant or not. The Complainant further submits that, he recalled the memory that there was a theft in his milk dairy on the night of 03.05.12. In this connection he lodged a complaint to jurisdictional police on 04.05.12. Accordingly, they registered the case. The Complainant further submits that, on 08.02.13 he had issued a notice U/s.80 of CPC to the bank and in this regard, he given a complaint on 09.02.13 to the jurisdictional police. OPs sent a reply stating that, the said cheque was issued in favour of Mrs.R.Sunitha by the Complainant, hence, OP.2 passed the cheque by clearing Rs.25,000/- from his account and further stated that whatever the action has been done based on bank rules. However, a letter written to Karnataka bank to refund the said amount alleged to have withdrawn fraudulently by Smt.Sunitha, the Karnataka bank yet to submit their reply. The OPs have denied to admit the claim and refund the amount fraudulently withdrawn by a stranger. Even after lapse of 4½ months, he did not get justice. Therefore, he sought the information through RTI Act on 16.05.12. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of OP.2 has communicated vide his letter dtd.21.06.13 that they could not trace out the application submitted by the Complainant while opening the account. Further, a copy of specimen signature card also not traceable and the same will be furnished as and when it is available. However, the PIO has provided specimen signature card submitted on 28.06.2000 and copies of withdrawal slips which are recent one and are aware by the Complainant. Thereafter passed the buck on the Chennai branch in clearing the cheques without verifying the signature on the cheques. There is a prima facie evident that the OP banks have committed the series of lapses on their part and on the contrary, they trying to pass the buck on the Complainant that stop payment have not been given at right time. Hence this complaint.
3. After issuance of notice, OPs did appear and filed version. OPs in their version submit that, the Complainant is a SB account holder. The Complainant had lodged the complaint to the police station on 04.05.12 and the same has not intimated nor sent the copy of the complaint to OP.2. The intimation of the misplacement was brought known to OP.2 only on 31.12.12. The Complainant has not issued specific instructions calling upon for stop payment in banking parlance to OPs instructing them not to honour the cheques with details. The Complainant had personally collected the cheque book bearing no.372121 to 372140 on 07.09.11 and should have taken care of the above cheque leaves which he is claiming to be misplaced by him. Further the Complainant use to change his signatures often and this was noticed by the OPs. The OPs should not be held responsible for the misdeeds of Complainant. The Complainant should have issued stop payment immediately after misplacement of the cheque book. There is a gross negligence on the part of the Complainant in not intimating the OPs with regard to misplace of the cheques. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OPs filed affidavit evidence. Both filed written arguments. Heard. We have gone through the available materials on record.
5. The points that arise for our consideration are:
- Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?
- What order?
6. Our answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative
Point No.2:- As per final order
REASONS
7. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OPs. It is not in dispute that, from the Complainant’s account an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn on presenting the cheque bearing no.372122. According to the Complainant, he lost his cheque book and never issued the said cheque for an amount of Rs.25,000/- to anybody much less in favour of Smt.Sunitha. It is also not in dispute that, the said cheque was cleared on 27.12.12. This fact has been noticed by the Complainant, when he was visited the OP.2 bank on 31.12.12. Further it is also the case of the Complainant that, he has also requested the bank to stop the payment including the cheques bearing no.372121 to 372140.
8. The Complainant approached the jurisdictional police on 24.02.13 stating that by forging his signature on the cheque, one Smt.Sunitha has withdrawn the amount of Rs.25,000/-. The say of the OP bank is quite different stating that, the Complainant would have been very diligent in reporting the matter at the earliest by giving better particulars. Further, the OP bank has taken the contention stating that, the Complainant is in the habit of changing his signature. As we already stated above, the encashment of an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the Complainant’s account by tendering the said cheque is not in dispute. Only the say of the OP bank is that, the Complainant was not diligent in reporting the matter at the earliest. In our considered view, copy of the said cheque is found at doc.A7, wherein the signature of the Complainant if referred to the signature found on the complaint as well as on the vakalathnama are quite different. The OP bank to overcome its defense has taken the contention stating that, the Complainant is in the habit of changing his signature. This plea appears to be taken only on after thought just to suit its defense.
9. At this stage, we placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2019 (4) CPR 150 (NC) in the case of M.Sivanandam and Anr., vs. Branch Manager, SBI and Anr., wherein it has been elaborately discussed in respect of liability of the bank reads thus:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Revision petition – Sec.21 – Complainant having separate SB accounts- amount withdrawn from accounts using forged slips- bank rules – withdrawal form should be used by account holder – accompanied by passbook – Complainants approached District Forum – District Forum and State Commission – Dismissed the complaint – National Commission – deficiency of service by bank – Commission directed to pay Complainant Rs.1,15,000/-.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Complainants were having separate SB Accounts with the First Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as “SBI”) and on 23.01.2007 the First Complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,53,963/-. While so, on 08.02.2007 he came to know that an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was withdrawn on 02.02.2007 by using forged signature withdrawal slip. Likewise, the Second Complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- were withdrawn on 29.01.2007 and 31.1.2007 once again by using a forged withdrawal slip and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was deposited on 02.02.2007. It is averred that even this amount was not actually deposited by the Second Complainant. When this fact was brought to the notice of SBI, the Complainants were asked to give a police complaint. The Complainants sent a letter dated 23.02.2007 to both the Opposite Parties by certificate of posting. Thereafter on 06.03.2007, the Complainants gave a Police Complaint on 14.03.2007 to Commissioner of Police, Egmore Chennai. Thereafter, on 29.03.2007, the Complainants sent a detailed letter by R.P.A.D. and called upon the SBI to recredit a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- withdrawn from the Complainants’ account by way of his forged signatures. Since the Complainants did not receive any reply to their letters, a legal notice dated 12.04.2007 to re-credit a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 65,000/- to the First and Second Complainants’ accounts was issued. SBI replied vide letter dated 20.04.2007 denying all the allegations.
3. The Complainants sent a rejoinder dated 30.04.2007 that only when the Complainants presented the pass book for entry on 08.02.2007 did they come to know of the said transactions. In the Complaint, it was pleaded that the Second Complainant never signed the withdrawal slip used by the third party Mrs. R. Kala. The First Complainant also denied that the withdrawal slip was signed by him which were withdrawn by the third party Mr. C.Babu. The Complainants denied that they even knew the said Mrs. R. Kala and C. Babu. It was also stated that they had never handed over the pass book to any third party.
11. It is vehemently denied by the Complainants that the passbooks were accompanied by the withdrawal slips. Be that as it may Rule 12 clearly stipulates that withdrawal slips cannot be made to use for making payments to third parties. For withdrawing money through authorized representatives, a letter of authority duly signed should be presented along-with the pass book. In the instant case there was no such authority letter given by the Complainants to the Bank to have released these amounts. It is the case of the Complainants that withdrawal slips were never signed by them. This submission coupled with Rule 12, which clearly mandates that the withdrawal slip should be accompanied by letter of authority and without that payment cannot be made to third party substantiates the stand of the Complainants that the Bank has committed an act of deficiency of service in releasing the amounts based on the withdrawal slip. It is pertinent to mention that Bank has failed to file disputed withdrawal slips dated 29.01.2007, 30.1.2007 and 02.02.2007. If the originals were with the police, even the copies of the same were not filed either before the Fora below or before us to enable the Commission to verify the specimen signatures. The Complainants were devoid of the opportunity of sending the same to a hand-writing expert for verifying the signatures. We find force in the contention of the Complainants that the withdrawal slips were never accompanied with the passbooks and the entries were made subsequently when the passbooks were produced by the Complainants and it was only then that the Complainants came to know about the forged transactions. Learned Counsel for the Bank further contended that since fraud and cheating has been alleged by the Complainants, they ought to go to a Civil Court and the FIR filed by the Bank is still pending. We find it a fit case to place reliance on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.J. Merchant vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002), 6 SCC 635 in which it was observed by the Apex Court that the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court whereas State Commission is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge and they are competent to decide complicated issues of laws or facts and thus relegating the Complainant to a Civil Court as a matter of routine is not proper. The subject matter of dispute herein is with respect to deficiency of service against the Bank and, therefore Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. A perusal of the FIR evidences that the Complainant has stated that the withdrawal slip was never accompanied by a pass book. We find force in the contention of the Complainants that had the passbooks been presented with the withdrawal slips, then the entries would have been updated on the same date, but instead, only on the production of the passbooks by the Complainants that the entries were updated and the Complainants came to know about the withdrawals. Hence we are of the view that the Bank ought to have been more vigilant in verifying the signatures and adhering to the SB Rules before releasing the amounts to third parties merely based on the withdrawal slips. At the cost of repetition, the copy of the subject withdrawal slips was not produced before us.
10. If the brief text of the said judgment is taken in to consideration, the Bank ought to have been more vigilant in verifying the signatures and adhering to the SB Rules before releasing the amounts to third parties. In this context, we further noticed that, the Complainant has made all the possible efforts to get the following better particulars:
- The copies of application submitted at the time of opening the account
- Copy of specimen signature card submitted by the Complainant at the time of opening SB account
- Copy of the specimen signature card submitted by the Complainant on 28.06.2000
- Copies of withdrawal slips
But there was no proper response by the OP bank and it has provided only (3) & (4) particulars. In this context, the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, we come to the conclusion that, OP bank is found to be very much negligent in comparing the admitted signature of the Complainant in the relevant documents at the time of opening the SB account with reference to the xerox copy of the said cheque. Hence, there is negligence on the part of OP bank. In this context, OP bank is directed to recredit the amount of Rs.25,000/- in the account of the Complainant along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint to till the date of realization, failing which, the said amount carries interest at the rate of 12% p.a. litigation cost is fixed to Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly we answered point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
11. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.
2. The OP.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to recredit the amount of Rs.25,000/- in the account of the Complainant along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint to till the date of realization within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the said amount carries interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
3. OPs are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 20th day of November 2019)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant dated.30.01.14
Sri.R.Guruprasad
Copies of Documents produced by the Complainant:
Doc.A1 | Letter dtd.31.12.12 |
Doc.A2 | Notice dtd.08.02.13 |
Doc.A3 | Complaint to SHO Jalahalli, DCP, ACP dtd.09.02.13 |
Doc.A4 | Complaint to SHO dtd.24.02.13 |
Doc.A5 | Reply notice dtd.05.03.13 |
Doc.A6 | Reply to RTI letter dtd.21.06.13 |
Doc.A7 | Cheque dtd.26.12.12 |
Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs dated.17.02.14
Smt.Sheela Sreekumar, Manager
Copies of Documents produced by OPs
MEMBER PRESIDENT