OFFICE  OF  THE  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI

C.C.134/2008

Present:-

                                    1) Md. Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S.       -  President

                                    2) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar         -  Member

                                    3) Md. Jamatul Islam                        -  Member

Sri Arbin Kumar Boruah                                                           -Complainant

S/O- Sri Jitendra Kumar Boruah

Permanent R/O-Vill- Bapuji Nagar

P.O & P.S- Pulibor

Dist-Jorhat,Assam

and  Presently residing at

C/O- Lakheswar Khanikar

H.No-85, South Sarania,Ulubari,Guwahati-781007

Dist-Kamrup(M),Assam

-VS-

1. The Indian Bank,Head Office                                            -Opp.Party

Post Box No-1384

66, Rajaji Salai,Chennai-600001

Tamilnadu

2.  The Branch Manager, India Bank,

GNB Road(1692) Branch,

1^st floor,Seuji Enclave,GNB Road,

Chandmari Traffic Point,Guwahati-03

3. The Circle Officer,Indian Bank

Nabagraha Road,Guwahati-03

​

Appearance:

Ld advocate Sri Subhas Mohan Sarma for the complainant .

Date of exparte argument-15/02/18

Date of exparte judgment-22/03/18

                                    EXPARTE JUDGMENT

This is a complaint U/S- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The complaint filed by Sri Arbin Kumar Boruah against the Indian Bank was admitted on 19/12/2008 and notices were served on all opp. parties . The opp. party side filed written statement on 31/07/2009 and thereafter the complainant as well as Shri Rupam Borah filed their evidence on affidavit and PW No-1 was cross examined by the opp. party side’s Ld counsel , but the opp. party side has defaulted to appear and accordingly this  case  against  them is proceeded  on exparte  vide this forum’s order dtd.05/04/17. Thereafter , the complainant  filed written argument (exparte) on 14/06/17  and we  heard oral exparte argument  of the Ld counsel Sri Subhas Mohan Sarma for the complainant on 15/02/18 and today we deliver the judgment which is as below.

2. The gist of the complaint is that  the complainant opened a savings account on 16/06/2008 under the Indian Bank in its GNB Road,Guwahati-03 bearing the Savings Bank Account No-776792729 . On 03/10/2008 , one cheque book was issued to  the complainant. The complainant went to Jorhat early in the morning on 23/10/2008  and he returned Guwahati on 06/11/2008  . The complainant kept his unsigned cheque  book along with the passbook  at safe place of his rented room. On 23/10/2008 , an amount of Rs.27,711/- was there as balance deposit  in the complainant’s account after several transactions. After return, when he withdrew an amount  of Rs.2,000/- through ATM  from his said  account on 06/11/2008, the balance amount was shown as Rs.717/-  on the slip, whereas the balance amount should have been of Rs.25,711/- . The complainant was shocked and ran  to the concerned branch of the bank to up-to-date his passbook and it was detected that an amount  of Rs.25,000/- had withdrawn from the account on 23/10/2008 through a “pay to self” cheque  bearing No-553858. Then  the complainant approached the Opp.Party No-2 ,Branch Manager  on the same day and made a verbal complaint. The Branch Manager produced the aforesaid  cheque bearing No-553858 and it was detected that an amount of Rs.25,000/-  was paid to one Sri Surajit Saikia  although the cheque  was a “pay to self” cheque. The complainant  neither known any person namely Surajit Saikia nor issued any cheque  to him. The signature of the complainant known in the aforesaid cheque has  clear difference  with the genuine / specimen  signature of the complainant which  can be detected by an ordinary person  in a first look and due to non verification  of the signature of the aforesaid  cheque, the criminal concerned could  able to withdraw fradulently the sum  of Rs.25,000/-  only. On 10/11/2008 , the complainant  was advised by the Opp.Party No-2 to submit a written complaint and accordingly the complainant made  a written complaint . The complainant  on 17/11/2008  he was informed  that the case was referred to the Circle Officer (Opp.Party No-3)  of Indian Bank and on 19/11/2008  the complainant  again submitted one representation before the Opp.Party No-3 . The complainant state that the bank authority has not taken the matter seriously  and has not done  anything except  giving assurance to the complainant and the complainant is running from pillar to post. The complainant states that the amount deposited in his said account was collected from various customers as advance in terms  of business and due to not getting the money in time  he could not deliver the finished products to his customer in time. Further  he states that he could not concentrate in his business, he has lost his goodwill regarding business , which causes irreparable loss to  the complainant. The opp. parties are required  to be directed to pay  Rs.25,000/-  which has been lost by the complainant from his account due to deficiency in service on the part of the said bank and Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of business , Rs.25,000/-on account of the pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/-  on account of the loss of reputation.

3. The pleading of the opp. party side is that on 23/10/2008 a cheque bearing No-553858 amounting to Rs.25,000/-was produced  before the cash counter of the Opp.Party No-2 by one Surajit Saikia and he sought to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000 .After producing of the said cheque  the concerned bank officials duly verified the said signature of the cheque as per procedure  of the bank and paid the said  amount to one Surajit Saikia. The presentee of the cheque after obtaining his signature on the back side along with his mobile number. The opp. party begs to state that unless the complainant has issued  the aforesaid cheque how an outsider person can produce a cheque before the cash counter of the opp. party bank for withdrawal of money and that the complainant definitely with a malafide intention  has issued the cheque  to the said person and withdrawan the money in a false name  along with a false mobile no just for illegal gain. The opp. party states that on receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the branch manager immediately  referred the matter to the Circle Office. The Opp.Party No-3 and after going through the complaint of complainant as per instruction  of the Circle Office an FIR  has been lodged before the Chandmari Police Station and the Chandmari  Police Station  on receipt of the FIR  on 21/11/2008 started investigation and seized  one original cheque of Indian Bank bearing No-553858 dtd.03/08/2008 with a short signature (specimen) of the complainant from the Opp.Party No-2 in connection with the said case. The opp. party states that  the complainant is not entitled to get Rs.25,000/-  as deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/-  for loss of business , Rs.25,000/- for pain  and sufferings  and Rs.50,000/-  for loss of his reputation as he has not suffered any loss in business pain and loss his reputation. The opp. party states that  the bank was not in negligent in disbursing  the  cheque amount in favour  of the bearer and the cheque  was having passed after duly verified  the signature which is similar to the specimen signature of the complainant  as per records of the bank and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp. party.The opp. party submits that the complainant was in negligent in keeping of the cheque book  for which the aforesaid  cheque was taken /stolen by some other person from the custody of the complainant  as such the complainant  is not entitled to get any compensation for deficiency of service and for pain and suffering as alleged.

4. We have perused the evidence of the complainant and found that the complainant  opened a savings account on  16/06/2008 under the Indian Bank in its GNB Road (1692) branch, First floor , Seujee Enclave , GNB Road,Chandmari Traffic Point ,Guwahati-03 and the said bank issued Savings Bank Account No-776792729 (Exhibit-1) ,and a Cheque book bearing No-HMSCD553841(Exhibit-2) . The complainant states in his evidence that he went to  Jorhat on 23/10/2008 keeping his unsigned cheque book along with the pass book . He states in his evidence that on 23/10/2008 , an amount of Rs.27,711/-  was there as balance deposit in the account but after  returning  from Jorhat to Guwahati  on 06/11/2008  he withdrew an amount of Rs.2,000/-  only through ATM from  his said account, the balance amount  was shown as Rs.717/-  only on the slip, the balance ought to have  been shown as Rs.25,711/- and when he updated his passbook it was detected that an amount of Rs.25,000/- had been withdrawn from his said account on 23/10/2008  through a “pay to self” cheque bearing No-553858 and he then approached the Branch Manager (Opp.Party No-2),GNB Road Branch (1692) on the same day  and made a verbal complaint and  the Branch Managerwhen produced the said cheque (Exhibit-3) which  revealed that  an amount of Rs.25,000/-was paid to one Sri Surajit Saikia . The complainant states in his evidence that he neither know any person by name Surajit Saikia nor issued any cheque to him and  the signature of the deponent  shown in the aforesaid cheque (Exhibit-3) has clear difference with the specimen signature  of him . The complainant  states in his evidence that the said cheque (Exhibit-3) was referred  to the Director –cum-Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of Assam, Directorate of Forensic Science ,Assam,Kahilipara,Guwahati-19 by the Officer-in -Charge at Chandmari Police Station as per direction of this forum and the report / opinion of the Scientific Officer ,Questioned documents Division, Directorate of Forensic Science,Assam bearing No-DFS/QDS-94/2010 dtd.22/06/2010 (Exhibit-6)  shows that the signature of the impugned cheque has clear difference from his specimen signature .

5.   We have seen  that Exhibit-6 which is the opinion of the Scientific Officer,Questioned documents  Divisions and we find that he  opined that the person  who wrote the blue enclosed signatures  stamped and marked as S1 to S12 did not write the red enclosed signatures  similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3 and the Scientfic Officer  stated the reasons of his opinion is , that the standard signature marked S! to S12 are speedily written and show natural variation amongst themselves , which is an inherent  sign of genuineness but the questioned signatures  marked Q1 to Q3 are written with  slow speed with careful attention  to the writing process , which is an inherent sign  of forgery and  both  the above set of questioned and specimen  signatures not belong to the same general class as indicated by differences in handwriting characteristics like movement , skill , slant ,alignment and spacing etc. and he has not found any similarities between the questioned signatures Q1 to Q3 and the specimen signatures S1 to S12.

                  Thus from opinion of handwriting expert of questioned documents department of Forensic Science Laboratory ,Govt.of Assam , it is clear that the disputed cheque was not signed by the complainant but it was signed by another person forging his signature. In the banking business it is required for bank officials to scrutinise each and every signatures put in the deposited cheques to find out whether the account holder put the said signatures or some other person write the signature of the account holder purported to show that they are the actual signature of the account holder. In the present case , the opp. party bank might not have properly scrutinised the signature of the disputed cheque. If he would had properly scrutinised the signature put on the leaf of the cheque then he could have detected that some other person forged the signature of the complainant and then he could have rejected the cheque, but the concerned bank official has not done such acts and as a result he paid the amount of Rs.25,000/- to another person who has forged the signature of the complainant . Therefore we hold that due to negligence of the bank officials Rs.25,000/- have been paid to another person i.e. the forgerer of signature of the complainant and therefore the opp. parties are liable to refund the amount Rs.25,000/-to the complainant . The opp. party by paying the said amount to another person (forgerer) put the complainant in mental agony and they also harassed the complainant by compelling him to approached them repeatedly for meeting up his grievances. So we hold that the opp. parties are liable to pay atlest Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and also to pay him another Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

                  The complaint against all the opp. parties is allowed on exparte and they are directed to refund the money of Rs.25,000/- with interest @6% per annum from the day of 23/10/2008 and also to payhim Rs.5,000/-as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding to which all the opp. parties are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to pay the amount within 45 days , in default, the other two amounts hall also carry interest at the same rate.

            Given under our hands and seals on this day of 22^nd March,2018.

           (Smt Archana Deka Lahkar)   (Md.Jamatul Islam)   (Md.Sahadat Hussain)                                                                                                                      Member                         Member                          President