<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.03.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th JUNE 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. S.S.NAGARALE PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.711/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT T.Sainath Setty,# 198, 1st Cross, 1st Floor,5th Main Road,Bhuvaneswar Nagar,8th Mile, Hesargatta Road,Bangalore – 560057.Advocate – Sri.Vinay J.SV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Chief Manager,(P & S Division)State Bank of Mysore,Main Branch, Avenue Road,Bangalore – 560002.Advocate – S.V.Gowramma.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.8,000/- being the cheque amount and compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with interest and cost on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the customer of the OP having S.B A/c No.64020541519 since long time. On 19.04.2008 a cheque bearing No.637176 purported to have been issued by the complainant has been fraudulently encashed by one Mr.Swamy for Rs.8,000/-. Complainant has not issued the said cheque to Mr.Swamy. OP has paid the cheque amount of Rs.8,000/- to Mr.Swamy. Complainant brought the said fact to the notice of the OP on 02.05.2008 and on 24.06.2008. OP has not taken any steps to credit the amount back to the account of the complainant. On 09.03.2009 complainant caused the legal notice to OP and to the Chief Vigilance Officer of the OP Bank. In spite of service of notice there was no response from the OP. Due to this act of OP complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed its version mainly contending that it has issued a cheque book of 10 leafs bearing No.637176 to 637200 to the complainant on 27.12.2007. On 02.05.2008 the complainant informed the OP that cheque bearing No.637176 dated 19.04.2008 for a sum of Rs.8,000/- was encashed by Mr.Swamy. Complainant has neither signed nor issued any cheque in favour of Mr.Swamy. It is the duty of complainant to keep the cheque in safe custody. OP has referred the matter for hand writing expert Smt.C.V.Jayadevi. It is opined that signature on the cheque differs from that of the complainant. Third person misused the cheque and drawn the amount of Rs.8,000/- by forging the signature of the complainant. Complainant has not informed about the loss of cheque leafs. There is a contributory negligence on the part of the complainant. Among other grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the S.B A/c holder with the OP Bank. It is also not at dispute that cheque bearing No.637176 for Rs.8,000/- drawn by Mr.Swamy was also not signed by the complainant as per the hand writing expert opinion. OP Bank has not exercised due diligence while honoring the cheque. OP being custodian of the public funds should exercise extraordinary care and caution while verifying the specimen signature. Copies of the passbook, correspondences and copy of the legal notice are produced. Even after a receipt of opinion of expert dated 24.11.2008, OP has not paid the cheque amount to the complainant. Here we find deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When the signature of the cheque is not genuine there is no mandate on the Bank to pay. When Bank makes payment on said cheques can’t resist the claim of the customer with the defence of negligence on the part of the complainant such as leaving the cheque book carelessly etc. Law on the subject is well settled. In the case of Canara Bank V. Canara Sales Corporation & others (1987) 2SCC 666.<br /> <br /> 2) I (2008) CPJ 31 (NC)<br /> 3) III (2008) CPJ 419<br /> 4) IV (2008) CPJ 342<br /> <br /> 7. We have followed the basic principles and guidelines enunciated by their Lordship in the above said rulings while coming to the just conclusion in this case. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay cheque amount of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 19.04.2008 till realization and also pay litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of June 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />