ORDER

Per Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, President

The complainant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years . She is a retired senior government teacher of English Language from Govt of NCT . Her educational qualifications are MA (English) & B.Ed. from University of Delhi. She had opened a six years monthly income scheme account with  Post Office Krishna Nagar (H.P.O). Delhi for an amount of  Rs. 3,30,000/- out of her retrial benefits/ savings. She was issued with a passbook bearing account no. 48182 dated 26.2.2010. She was entitled to a monthly interest of Rs. 2200/- which she could withdraw every month after presenting  the original passbook issued by the Post Office.  However, because of some unfortunate circumstances, she could not withdraw the monthly interest till 30.8.2011. On 30.8.2011, when she visited the post office to withdraw the interest amounts accrued to her account, she was shocked to know that interest amounts had already been withdrawn up to the period 30.6.2011 . She had taken up the matter with the OPs and had told them that she had not withdrawn the interest amounts which was also evident from the original pass book.  The OP , however had failed to redress her grievance which led her to approach this forum.

   The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement .  It has admitted that the complainant had opened an MIS account  with it for a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- and was entitled to monthly interest on the same at the rate of Rs. 2200/-.  It has further admitted that on 30.8.2011, she had visited the post office for withdrawal of the interest amount which had accrued in her account but was informed that the interest up to the period 30.6.2011 had already been withdrawn from her account. It has admitted that the complainant had lodged a complaint with it .   It has , however, denied any deficiency in service and has claimed that it had held a departmental enquiry wherein it was established that payment of interest  was made to Smt. Usha Ohri. Paras 6 , 8 and 20 of the written statement are ,however ,relevant to the determination of the complaint and are being reproduced as under:-

6. That on the basis of complaint departmental enquiry was conducted and it was established that payment of interest amount in r/o MIS account no. 48182 was made to Smt. Usha Ohri.

8. That the content of Para no. 12 of complaint are wrong and denied i.e. signature available on the withdrawal form amounting Rs. 35200/- was paid are same and similar to the signature on the account opening form.

20.That the content of Para no. 24 is denied.  Department is not denying the claim of complainant and it is very much ready for payment of interest of Rs. 35200/- but complainant remained failed to submit claim paper timely.

We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

    Learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the written statement as well as evidence led by OP wherein it has admitted the claim of the complainant for payment of Rs. 35,200/-on account of interest. In fact, the stand taken by the OP in its written statement and evidence is neither here nor there. It is rather confusing. On the one hand, it is stated by the OP that it had held a departmental enquiry which had concluded that payment of interest had been made to Usha Ohri (Complainant), yet it also states that it is prepared to make payment of the amount of Rs. 35,200/- on account of interest but had failed to do so as the complainant had failed to fill in the claim form. It appears to us that the amount of Rs. 35,200/- had been illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant in connivance with the officers/ officials of the OP and the OP in a bid to save them is blowing hot and cold  in its stand before this forum. The fact that the aforesaid amount was illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant is writ large on the record. The amount of the interest could have been withdrawn on the production of the original passbook.  The original pass book is  in the possession of the complainant and was not produced at the time of the withdrawal.  The OP has failed to place on record the specimen signatures of the complainant on the account opening form. This appears to have been done deliberately which is also evident from the reply to the RTI application filed by the complainant. The reply reads as under:-

With reference to your application, the point wise reply is furnished below:-

1. (I) Account Opening form is not traceable at present.

(ii) Copy of withdrawal vouchers in respect of MIS account no. 48182 are supplied.

2. Inquiry report is not available in this office as the enquiry was conducted by ASP 2^nd Sub Dn. Of the Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices Delhi East District Delhi-110051

1. Not available in this office as  the controlling officer of the inquiry officer is the Senior Supdt. Of Post offices. Delhi East District, Delhi -110051
2. Not available in this office as the inquiry officer was not related to this office.
3. Not available in this office.

3. Sh. G. C. Rawat and Sh. Mukesh

    We had, therefore, compared the signatures on the withdrawal slips with the admitted signatures of the complainant on the original complaint and other papers on record. There is a stark difference between the admitted signatures  of the complainant and the signatures on the withdrawal slips. Even otherwise, a perusal of the signatures on the withdrawal slips makes it amply clear that these  have been appended by an uneducated person and there is a clear dis-union of words in the signatures. One of the withdrawal slips is also filled up in Hindi. All this was sufficient to arouse suspicion about the person making the withdrawal. Therefore there is sufficient evidence of the fact that the illegal withdrawal was made in connivance with some officer/ officials of the OP against whom no action appears to have been taken.

   We may also quote the following judgments we have considered while coming to our aforesaid conclusion. In the case of Post Master & Ors V/s Sanjay Gupta & Anr IV (2014) CPJ  135 National Commission had held as under:-

10. Photocopy of the relevant specimen signatures of Sanjay Gupta and Anusha Gupta as also photocopies of the relevant withdrawal forms are available on record. On naked eye comparison, we find a stark difference in the signatures. Despite this, there is nothing on the record to suggest that officials of the post office concerned followed the mandate of Rule 36 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual, Volume I. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the above said line of reasoning adopted by the State Commission. Therefore, there is no occasion for interfering with the order in exercise of the revision jurisdiction.

It was further observed:

We do not find merit in this contention because even if the petitioner has failed to keep the pass book in safe custody, this will not absolve the petitioner of its duty to follow the procedure for withdrawal of amount from the account of customer.

Rule 36 (a) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual, Volume I  deals with procedure for withdrawal of the amount in cases where the signatures on withdrawal form differs from the specimen signatures.

36 (a) if the signature of a depositor on an application for withdrawal differs from the specimen on record, payment will be made only after the depositor has been identified and his signature has been attested by the identifier (other than the agent or messenger of the depositor) who is known to the post office or by any one of the following manners with whose signature and seal of office the post office is familiar or on production of any proof mentioned in Sub-Para (b).

Note Attestation of signatures by a person will be in the following form:

“The Depositor is known to me and has signed in my presence.” The seal of the office must invariably be affixed.

  The case of the complainant is on a much better footing than the one quoted by us above.

In the case of Uma Shankar Bhatt V/s Punjab and Sindh Bank  & Ors I (2008) CPJ 31 (NC),  the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

 A Manager or cashier of a bank are expected to have a reasonable degree of intelligence and knowledge ordinarily required of a person in his position to befit to discharge their duties. If that is not done, and the amount is disbursed to the third party, without verification of the signature of the  depositor, or doubting/suspecting as to why no cheque was used as an instrument of transfer, when the whole of the amount lying in the account was being transferred in one go, the fault lies with the bank. 

In the case of Haryana Gramin Bank (Earlier known as Ambata Kurushetra Gramin Bank ) & Anr V/s Jaswinder & Anr  IV (2010) CPJ 210 (NC)  ,  the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

In the case before us , entries of the balance in the passbook are there as also the entries in the ledger book of the bank book. However, in the ledger account withdrawals are shown in respect of which there are no entries in the passbook and as such it was for the bank to establish that the withdrawals have been made by the account holders in the absence of any entry to that effect in the passbook. The case of the complainants is that they had not made any withdrawals and obviously the complainants could not produce any evidence that they had not withdrawn the amount from their accounts. The bank has shown in the ledger book the withdrawals and the reduced balance or nil balance and as such, it was for the bank to prove that the amount was withdrawn by the complainants. The Op has failed to prove the same.

In the case of Canara  Bank V/s Canara Sales Corporation & Ors AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1603  the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

The relationship between the customer of a bank and the bank is that of a creditor and debtor. When a cheque which presented for encashment contains a forged signature the bank has no authority to make payment against such a cheque. The bank would be acting against law in debiting the customer with the amounts covered by such cheques. When a customer demands payment for the amount covered by such cheques, the bank would be liable to pay the amount to the customer. The bank can succeed in denying payment only when it establishes that the customer is disentitled to make a claim either on account of adoption. Estoppel or ratification. The principle of law regarding this aspect is as follows:

When a cheque duly signed by a customer is presented before a bank with whom he has an account there is a mandate on the bank to pay the amount covered by the cheque. However. if the signature on the cheque is not genuine. there is no mandate on the bank to pay. The bank, when it makes payment on such a cheque, cannot resist the claim of the customer with the defence of negligence on his part such as leaving the cheque book carelessly so that third parties would easily get hold of it. This is because a document in cheque form, on which the customer's name as drawer is forged, is a mere nullity. The bank can succeed only when it establishes adoption or estoppel.

We are , therefore, of the considered opinion

that the OP was deficient in rendering service to the complainant. We , therefore , direct OP as under:-

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 35,200/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 12.4.2013 till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

   The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which  OP  shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be made available to parties free of cost as per law.

    File be consigned to R/R.

   Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________