Delhi

West Delhi

CC/08/178

DR ROOPA SALWAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO BANK - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST).

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

Complaint Case No. 178/2008

 

IN  MATTER OF:-

 

Dr.  Roopa Salwan M.D.(Med)DM (Cardiology)

W/o Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan

47, Pusa Road

New Delhi-110005.                                                     .…. Complainant

 

 

VERSUS

 

1. UCO  Bank

Having its registered office at

Parliament Street

Connaught Place

New Delhi

Through its Executive Director                     …Opposite Party No.1 

 

2. The Chariman Cum Managing Director

UCO Bank

Parliament Street

Connaught Place

New Delhi                                                ...Opposite Party No.2

 

3. The Regional Manager

UCO Bank

Parliament Street

Connaught Place

New Delhi                                                ...Opposite Party No.3

 

4. The Senior Manager

        UCO Bank

       30/29, East Patel Nagar

       New Delhi -110008                                  ...Opposite Party No.4

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant is a doctor by profession and had worked at Max Devkidevi Heart and Vascular Institute, Saket, New Delhi. It is further averred that one Mr. S.K. Bedi was working as Office Manager with the Complainant’s husband  who is  practicing  Advocate.  As complainant  and her husband had  extremely busy schedule due to professional commitment, said Mr. S.K. Bedi took  advantage  of the  situation and planned a conspiracy in connivance with bank officials of OP.   The complainant‘s average income  in January  2005 was approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month  which was increased to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month with effect from January, 2006.  In January 2007 the complainant was shocked to note that a cheque of                Rs. 20,000/- issued by her to a private party was dishonoured.  The person to whom the cheque was issued visited her office  and  humiliated.  There upon  the complainant  called  up the bank  to know the balance  and again she was shocked to know that balance of Rs. 1443/- only whereas a minimum deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- every month was made in her account since January 2006 and usually she used to draw Rs. 40,000/-  per month. In the bank the Senior Manager of OP  Mr.  Mann  took out certain cheques for the month of Janauary, 2005 and complainant was shocked to see that her signature has been forged   on the cheques w.e.f 21.02.2005.  On further verification of every cheque  from January, 2005  to December, 2006  except the cheque for August 2005, the signature of the complainant was forged  and a total sum of        Rs. 6,68,000/- was withdrawn  from her saving account with the  connivance of bank official who permitted Mr. S.K. Bedi to illegally   withdraw money from her account by forging  her signature on cheques.  It has been further averred by the complainant that her cheque books were lying with said Mr. S.K. Bedi.  He also made a complaint to SHO, Karol Bagh on 04.01.2007 upon which FIR No. 32/2007 was registered.  Since nothing was done by the OPs they were with legal notice  for refund of entire  amount but all in vain .  Hence she filed the present complaint claiming damages for  loss of income , mental and physical  pain  and harassment  to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/-. Needless  to say that Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 12.12.2007 had transferred the complaint to this Forum  by holding that amount of compensation as to actual loss by  way of interest and entry  suffered by complainant  may not exceed Rs. 20,00,000/-  for purpose of  pecuniary jurisdiction, therefore, District  Forum  can try this matter.

2.  Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs which has filed its reply.  In its written statement O.P has taken preliminary objections that  the  account holder is duty bound to exercise  reasonable care to prevent  the bank from being misled.  The complaint is  premature, frivolous and not  maintainable    because  according to the complainant the  matter   relates to theft, fraud, cheating and forgery committed by  her trusted person who was manager of her husband, therefore,  complicated questions of theft, fraud, cheating and law  cannot  be effectively adjudicated upon in the summary  procedure  being followed by consumer fora.  It has been further stated that after registration of criminal case against  said Mr. S.K Bedi on 15.01.2007 under section 406,420, 408, 407 of IPC, Mr. S.K. Bedi  at the time of grant of bail  deposited a sum of                      Rs. 3,50,000/- for alleged cheated amount of Rs. 6,68,000/- and further  undertook to pay balance amount of Rs.3,18,000/- to the complainant.  There was no negligence or deficiency  in service on the part of the OP,  because the payment of  uncrossed bearer cheuques had been made  in good  faith  under the  circumstances  which did not afford a reasonable ground  for believing  that  Mr. Bedi was not entitled to receive  the payment of  the cheque  amount.  It is further  stated that at the time of issue of cheque book  to bank holder it is  specifically made clear  that bank shall not be responsible for any loss of cheques.  The bank holders are also instructed to keep the cheque book under lock and key and at a place of safety.  Further the payments of the cheques was made by OP after verification of specified signature   of complainant kept in the bank records.   On merits OP admitted that complainant was holding bank  account  with it but denied any kind   of conspiracy  and connivance of any  bank  employ of the OP.   It is further stated  that payment of cheques  is  routine transaction of bank  in the ordinary course of banking business and that  the official /officer of the bank are not  hand  writing expert  to check every stokes, turns, curvatures, , place of joining letter of the  bearer  of cheque in normal course of day.  Therefore, complaint be dismissed.
3.  The complainant was asked to file evidence. The complainant has filed rejoinder.  He also filed affidavit of evidence reaffirming the facts of the complaint. He relied upon the copy of the bank statement for the period 01.01.2005 to 05.01.2007 Ex. CW-1/1, Copy of complaint                   dated 04.01.2007 Ex. CW-1/2, Copy FIR dated 15.01.2007 of Ex.                  CW-1/3, Copy of  complaints dated 08.01.1007 and 12.01.2007 (Colly) and Ex. CW1/5, copy of Complaint dated 10.01.2007  Ex. CW-1/6(colly), Copy of  notice dated 12.02.2007 and postal receipt  Ex CW-1/7 and CW- 1/8,  Copy of letter dated 17.02.2007 to Senior Manger of Respondent Bank and its acknowledgement card  Ex.CW-1/9 and Ex-1/10. Copy of reply dated 16.03.2007 Ex-CW 1/11, Copy of letter dated 24.02.2007 Ex. CW -1/12.  On the other hand Sh. A.K.  Mahajan, Chief Manager, UCO Bank filed affidavit of evidence narrating facts of the reply. 
4. We have heard the counsel for complaint and OP-1 and perused the record.             
5.  Counsel for complainant vehemently stressed that there was deficiency  on part of  the OP Bank which in connivance with Mr. S.K. Bedi   put complainant on loss of Rs. 6,68,000/-  by permitting said Mr. Bedi to draw money on the basis of  forged  and  frivolous cheques  alleged to have been  signed by the complainant.  The counsel in support of his submissions referred to III (2003)CPJ 20 (NC)  in which National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, held as under :-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(g) -Banking Services – Deficiency in service- Fraudulent withdrawal of amount- Cheques books  issued to imposter who encashed the cheques-Bank failed twice to correctly verify the signatures on these instruments with specimen signatures of complainant-Double default on part of Bank–Deficiency in service proved-Complaint  allowed by Forum-Order set aside in appeal, resorted in revision  held:-

 

When we see the signatures on the Account Opening Form of both the complaints and compare them with the signatures on the cheque requisition application and the cheques, then without aid from any handwriting expert it becomes clear that the respondent failed not once but twice to correctly verify /compare the signatures on these instruments and the specimen signatures with them on record-one at the time of issue of cheque book and again at the time of encashing cheques.  This appears to be case of double default on the part of the respondent.  Bank’s cashiers are professional and  trained to read the  difference between the signatures.  It is here that they appear to have failed.  Deficiency in rendering service is writ large on the fact of it by the respondent by not  comparing the signatures on the documents/ instruments   presented to them with record of signatures kept by them.

 

In the light of above discussion we are unable to sustain the orders passed by the State Commission in the two appeals filed before hence, set aside.  The Orders of the District Forum are restored.  The revision petitions allowed.  Parties  to bear their own costs.

 

And complainant also cited  I(2004) CPJ 33 (DB) wherein Jammu & Kashmir High Court in case title Citizen  Co-operative  Bank Ltd. Vs Ritesh Mittal  CIMA  No. 99 of 2001- Decided on 10.12.2002 held as under:-

Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Banking Services- Cheques stolen from  cheque book, encashed by committing forgery- Liability denied by Bank–Contention, complainant responsible for negligence in not maintain cheque book- Contention  not acceptable –Bank must take all precautions, apply high-tech methods to check forgery regarding  signature- Complainant entitled to get encashed amount with interest @ 6%.

 

 In another judgment  filed by complainant  I(2005) CPJ 270  the State Commission, New Delhi in case titled  State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Ajit Singh held as under :-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(g)– Banking and Financial Instructions Services- Unauthorized withdrawal from Saving Bank Accounts- Adequate and  sufficient  care not taken in comparing  signatures- Deficiency in service proved-  Bank liable to pay amount with interest.

 

        Counsel for OP Bank,  on the other hand  cited case titled  UCO Bank  Vs Shri  S.D Wadhwa decided on 25.07.2013  wherein  the Hon’ble National Commission  cited  Bright Transport Complainant  Vs  Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd.-II(2012) CPJ 151(NC)  decided on 12.10.2012 and   Prempreet Textiles  Industries Ltd.  Vs  Baroda and Ors. III (2006) CPJ 218 (NC) decided on 15.05.2006.   Counsel for OP also cited one authority of Delhi State Commission titled Srikrishan  Dass   Vs Dena Bank  decided on 08.07.2002. 

6.  We have carefully considered the rival contentions raised by Counsel for parties and perused the record.   The polemical  point in the present  case is as to whether  fault can be found  with complainant  for not   keeping  the cheque book in safe custody  or OP bank should be held deficient in providing bank service to the complainant by not properly comparing her signature  on the cheques presented by Mr. S.K. Bedi, the office manager of complainant’s husband.  The judgment relied on  cited by Counsel for complainant does not come to the rescue of the complainant  because in the first judgment  titled  Abdul Razak &  Anr.  Vs South Indian Bank  Ltd.  the cheque book was   issued to the  imposter who  encashed the cheques  and the  bank failed to correctly verified the signatures on these instruments.   In second  case titled  Citizen  Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs Ritesh  Mittal it was held  that  bank  must take all precautions  and apply high tech methods to cheque forgery  regarding signatures and in third judgment   titled  State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur it was held  that bank committed deficiency in service by not taking adequate and sufficient care   in  comparing signature.  However, the judgments which are  latest in period cited by counsel  for OP would demonstrate that  where the allegations of forgery  and cheating are taken by the complainant where to  find cheating and  forgery and elaborate procedure of examination a witness  is required, consumer fora is not the proper platform for redressal  of grievance  of complainant  ant that  in such matter the matter should have been tried and adjudicated upon by the  regular court.  It  has also been  pointed that bank officials are  not  writing  expert in order  to do so they  have no  high tech  facility for comprising the signature.  Their obligation is that once they compare  signature  with the  admitted signatures kept in the bank and if both the signatures on comparison appear  to be the  same the instrument shall be dealt with positively.  It has also been observed by the  courts that the complainant  in under obligation to keep the cheque book in safe  custody and  if he  commits  any negligence or lapse, the bank shall not be held  responsible.  In the instant case it  has come on record that  the cheque books  alongwith the statement  were always  in the custody and  possession  of Mr. Bedi which conveys that complainant  failed to have control of the cheques and keeping the same  in safe custody for which the bank  cannot be faulted with.  Even otherwise Mr. S.K Bakshi  at the time of grant  of bail  paid a sum of               Rs. 3,50,000/- . 
7. In view of the judgment in UCO bank Vs S.C. Wadhwa the complaint  is dismissed .

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced this________24____ day of __FEB___________ 2020.

 

 

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                (PUNEET LAMBA)

PRESIDENT                                                    MEMBER