West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/86/2014

RABI MARIK. S/O. Late Radha Raman Marik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THT MANAGER, UNITED BANK OF INDIA, BASANTI BRANCH. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24-PARGANAS, ALIPORE, KOLKATA – 700 027

                                                       C.C. Case No.___86______OF_____2014________

Date of Filing :_3.3.2014                                                                               Date of Passing Judgement: _18.3.2014

Present                                :               President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

                                                Member(s)    :   Dr.(Mrs.) Shibani Chakraborty

Complainant                                      :  Rabi Marik, s/o late Radha Raman Marik, Vill. Basanti, P.O Basanti,                                                                                                           

 P.S. Basanti, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin – 743312.

                                                                                                                -Versus-

O.P/O.P(s)                                          :1.     The Chairman, United Bank of India, 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani,

                                                                P.S Hare Street, Kolkata – 1.

                                                                2.     The Deputy General Manater, And Chief Regional Manager,

                                                                United Bank of India, 24-Parganas Region, Kulpi Road, Baruipur,

                                                                P.S Baruipur, Kolkata – 144.

3.     The Manager, United Bank of India, Basanti Branch, Vill. Basanti, P.S Basanti, South 24-Parganas.  

                                                                                                JUDGEMENT

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under Section 12 of the C.P Act on the ground  that complainant having a Savings Bank account no.0478010152419 in UBI , Bansanti Branch under Village and P.S Bansanti, 24-Pargnas (S) and used to deposit some meager portion of his income time to time and till now except once on 9.3.2010 when deposited  Rs.49000/- in cash which is a sale proceed of his bank . It has claimed that Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn from his account but never updated the same . It has claimed that on 7.6.2011 when the passbook was updated he was surprised that on 30.7.2010 and 16.11.2010 there were more than four withdrawal in addition to one drawn by him on 28.6.2010 . He brought to the notice of the Branch Manager , Basnti Branch and lodged a diary to Basanti P.S on  7.8.2012 regarding forged withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- from his bank account . But the Bank authority sent signature for expert opinion to Forensic Department but nothing was done in his favour ,for which bank authority expressed its inability to repay the said amount and hence the case with a prayer to refund of Rs.30,000/- along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15000/-.

The O.P nos. 1 and 2 are not contesting the case by filing written version but O.P-3 concerned bank filed written version and has denied all the allegations against the Bank .

 It is the positive case of the Bank that after getting the complaint the O.P bank and his employees after proper verification from the withdrawal slip ,wherefrom the withdrawal was made along with the signature of the complainant , did not find any doubt regarding the difference of the signatures of the complainant and the signature on the alleged withdrawal slip. Apart from that O.P Bank sent the same to the Central Forensic Laboratory for proper adjudication of the matter . The CFSL from their opinion in respect of the signatures of complainant Rabi Marik is that “The detached standard signatures with defective line quality and lack of rhythm do not reveal sufficient individual handwriting characteristics  and scientific data for an  effective comparison with the questioned signatures. But they cannot express any opinion regarding the authorship of the signatures that of disputed signatures in comparison with standard signatures”.

It has claimed that the O.P and its employees tried their level best to verify the style of specimen signatures with the signatures of withdrawal slip of their customer at the time of withdrawal amount. Accordingly prays for dismissal of the case as the claim is not bonafide one.

Point for decision is whether the O.P Bank namely O.P-3 acted any deficiency in service or not.

                                                                Decision with reasons

We have considered para 7 of the written version ,wherefrom we find that CFSL did not opine that signatures are identical  but due to defective line ,quality and lack of rhythm  sufficient individual handwriting characteristics and scientific data for an effective comparison with the questioned signature was not fulfilled .

It is true that complainant is an illiterate person. His signatures may be differed time to time but bank authority should verify the photograph attached in the passbook at the time of disbursement of the said Rs.30000/- by their employees, which the employees of the O.P-3 bank  did not do, which is mandatory in case of signature of a little learning persons like the complainant ,whose quality of signature and standard of signature is suffering from lack of rhythm due to little learning and on naked eye we also find that signatures of Rabi Marik is also differentiate in some of the documents, where he puts  his signatures.  So, the bank authority made deficiency in service by not comparing the photograph of Rabi Marik,for which , we hold that O.P Bank made deficiency in service  which is also unfair trade practice.

 

Hence,

                                                                                Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed is allowed on contest against O.Ps with cost of Rs.5000/-.

The O.P-3 Bank is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which further compensation amount of Rs.30,000/-have to be paid along with principal amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant .

It is also directed that the Branch Manager after disbursement of the payment of Rs.30,000/-  he is at liberty to  realize the same from the employees of the bank who approved the said withdrawals slip after matching the signature of the complainant from the card without photograph.

The complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the stipulated date and at that time 9% interest will carry on the said amount.

Thus the case is disposed of.

 

                                                                                                                Member                                              President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

                                President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  Judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed is allowed on contest against O.Ps with cost of Rs.5000/-.

The O.P-3 Bank is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which further compensation amount of Rs.30,000/-have to be paid along with principal amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant .

It is also directed that the Branch Manager after disbursement of the payment of Rs.30,000/-  he is at liberty to  realize the same from the employees of the bank who approved the said withdrawals slip after matching the signature of the complainant from the card without photograph.

The complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the stipulated date and at that time 9% interest will carry on the said amount.

Thus the case is disposed of.

 

                                                                                                                Member                                              President