Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank in respect of honouring the cheques though they were not issued by the complainant and negligence on the part of the officials of the bank vis-à-vis deficiency in service in the course of rendering banking services. Undisputed facts are that complainant Rekha Jain in the month of February 2006 for her textile business, which she carried under the name and style “M/s.Rushabh Textiles” had opened a Current account with opponent bank at its Bhuleshwar Branch. Said Current account bears no.14729. It is also not disputed that to open the said account one Mr.Rakesh B. Jain of ‘Adi Textiles’ gave introduction and, thus, facilitated to open the account. It is further stated by the complainant that one Mr.Rakesh B.Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant is well known to the complainant and her husband Mr.Bharat B.Jain. Mr.Rakesh Jain was also in the textile business and used to carry his business in the name and style ‘Adi Textiles’. Looking to the account skills of Rakesh Jain and the confidence which Rakesh Jain imbibed into the complainant and her husband, the complainant as well as her husband used to entrust to Rakesh Jain their Books of accounts, records of bank accounts and vouchers, invoices, etc. of their business for the purpose of preparing and filing Income-tax returns. Everything went smoothly till the month of January 2008. It is further alleged by the complainant that Mr.Rakesh Jain had been operating various other accounts in the opponent bank Branch at Bhuleshwar in different names such as M/s.Adi Securities, Rakeshkumar Samratlal Jain, etc. in collusion and with the knowledge and connivance of the opponents. The complainant suspected foul play, mischief, manipulation, cheating, fraud, criminal breach of trust, etc. on the part of said Jain and, therefore, she had written letter dated 04/02/2008 to the opponent bank and also simultaneously complained to the police authorities. The opponent bank thereafter tried to bring pressure on the complainant to withdraw the letter dated 04/02/2008. The opponent bank also threatened to take further action if amount of `5,02,000/- was not deposited in the account. Owing to these threats and consequences, complainant deposited an amount of `5,00,000/- plus `2,000/- (total amount of `5,02,000/-) with the opponent bank. Thereafter, Rakesh Jain filed criminal complaint against the complainant in Additional Metropolitan Magistrates’ Esplanade 47th Court, Mumbai and on the basis of giving false information, obtained orders from the Magistrate against the complainant and her family. The police investigated the matter and found that for the offences for which a criminal complaint was filed, the complainant is not guilty. However, during the course of investigation by the police, complainant and her family felt harassed. During the course of investigation it has come to the light that Rakesh Jain without complainant’s information made requisition to the opponent, obtained cheque book and opponent bank permitted large scale operations and deposits and withdrawal from the account of the complainant on the basis of signatures of Rakesh Jain. Complaining deficiency in service on the part of the bank for permitting those several transactions of honouring the cheques when they did not bear the signatures of the complainant, the complainant claimed compensation to the extent of `55,02,000/- which inter-alia included claim for refund of amount of `5,02,000/- deposited by the complainant in the account, supra. The complainant also claimed certain reliefs pertaining to supply of information about the names of officials who facilitated transactions by Rakesh Jain by honouring the cheques drawn on the account of the complainant, etc. and regarding operation procedure for the banking business in the Current Account. Costs of `3,00,000/- are also claimed. Opponent by their written version dated 20/4/2010 opposed the complaint denying in toto the allegations leveled against it. After receipt of the letter dated 04/02/2008 they acted on it and did not allow any cheque transaction as desired by the complainant. Prior to it the cheques encashment resulting into debit entries in the account are made when signature of the account holder on the cheques tallies with specimen signature kept in their record though cheques presentation and cash deposit can be made by anybody. Account holders written request are necessary and opponent bank follows code of confidentiality in respect of each account holder including the complainant. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavit. The documents produced on record appears to be not in dispute except for the true xerox copies of the disputed cheques which were obtained by the complainant from the investigation record of the police. Heard both the parties at length. It is alleged by the Bank in its written version (and presented their case accordingly and which finds affirmation from the affidavit of banks official Mr.Ramanand) that the bank followed all due procedure as per the bank procedure whenever any cheque was presented and deposited in the Current account of the complainant. Complainant at one stage alleged that out of 219 cheques which are subject matter of the various transactions during the relevant period, only 5 of them bears her signature. Which were those cheques is not made clear. Her such case is in variance with the statement made in the complaint [Pr.3(m)] to the effect that the complainant had not operated said bank account and had not drawn even a single cheque. So also quite different case which shows that till 15/01/2008 it is the complainant who was in possession of all the record including cheque books; is stated in complainant’s letter dated 04/02/2008 to the Bank, infra. There is absolutely no evidence adduced as per provisions of section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to show that any cheque which was presented in her current account was false or that it is the Rakesh Jain who under his own signature presented those cheques in the bank and the bank official honoured those cheques, as alleged in the complaint. Thus, the very basis on which the present consumer complaint is based since neither substantiated nor proved, is largely making her case weak. The material placed on record revealed some interesting facts. Complainant in her complaint also made a reference to a criminal complaint filed against her for cheating and criminal breach of trust by Rakesh Jain. It appears that the Ld.Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation to the police and accordingly, Crime no.12/08 was registered on 31/08/2008 and was investigated. It was a criminal complaint against the complainant and her husband regarding misappropriation of `29 lakhs which were alleged to have been given for business to the complainant and her husband by Rakesh Jain. Ultimately, the investigating agency came to the conclusion that those `29 lakhs were already refunded and received by Rakesh Jain and the criminal complaint was filed through some misunderstanding between the parties and, as such, the investigating agency i.e. police categorized said criminal complaint as “neither true nor false” and recommended for grant of “C-summary”. Copy of the report was submitted by the investigating agency to the Magistrate along with annexures of said report and true copies of those papers are placed on record by the complainant. Investigation papers relating to the above referred report also contain statements recorded by the police during the enquiry made by them with complainant Rekha and her husband Bharat Jain. While substantiating their case that `29 lakhs were already refunded by complainant Rekha and her husband referred to the fact that the transactions are recorded in the M/s.Rushabh Textiles’ Current account with the opponent bank. Complainant Rekha herself also produced before the police her bank statement accounts received by her from the opponent bank. Thus, it corroborates the case of opponent when they state in their written version supported by the affidavit of their official, supra, that right from the beginning they have routinely supplied statement of accounts to the complainant and at no point of time she ever had taken any objection to the transactions recorded in her account. In fact, as per the rule of business if the complainant had any grievance about any transaction recorded in her account as reflected from the statements of account received by her, then she had to make a grievance in writing within 15 days from the receipt of the said statements of account. Admittedly, at any point of time, no such grievance is made and which indicates that complainant Rekha was all the while not only aware of the transactions in her bank account but was also accomplished to those transactions and had never any objection for these transactions (even if they were carried out by Rakesh Jain). Therefore, now complaining that about 219 cheques during the relevant period were issued by Rakesh Jain and the bank officials gloving hands with said Rakesh Jain allowed those transactions being recorded in her account by passing various cheques ignoring standard banking practice to verify signatures on the cheques, certainly, would not tantamount to any alleged deficiency in service on the bank officials vis-à-vis opponent bank. On the contrary, from the statements made before us during the course of arguments it could be seen that except for the payment of `5,02,000/- (`5,00,000/- paid on 22/03/2008 and `2000/- on 31/03/2008 as recorded in the statement of account on record), complainant Rekha did not carry by herself any transaction. In fact, complainant Rekha herself disowned the transactions and tried to submit that all the transactions in the said account were carried out by Rakesh Jain. If such is a state of affairs, from the circumstances narrated earlier, it could be seen that complainant Rekha was all the while allowed everything relating to the operation of her account which she herself entrusted to Rakesh Jain and by her conduct she also is a consenting party to all those transactions recorded in her bank account and, thereby, now she cannot complain alleged deficiency in service against the Bank as complained in this consumer complaint. She was all the while aware of the transactions in her account through the statement of accounts periodically received by her and since she is all the while in possession of all the documents including cheque books, accounts, etc. till 15/01/2008. Referring to the letter dated 04/02/2008, supra, which is written by complainant to the opponent bank, complainant has different story to make which contradicts her case as presented in this consumer complaint. Paragraph 4 of the said letter contribute lot of good credentials to Rakesh Jain and praises him as professionally good Accountant and, ultimately, stated that for last two years prior to the said letter, Rakesh Jain built a healthy professional relationship with complainant Rekha. In para 5 of the said letter, it is further alleged that as usual on 15/01/2008 Rakesh Jain approached complainant Rekha and collected the blank cheque book containing 100 leaves issued by opponent bank from complainant Rekha’s account under the name and style M/s.Rushabh Textiles and said Rakesh Jain also collected from the complainant Rekha slip books of Vijaya Bank (whereby cheques or cash are deposited in the Current Bank Account of complainant Rekha), Books of accounts, Income-tax returns, Advance tax receipts, Purchase bill books, Sale bill books, Registers and all other documents related to the account in order to update the account book entries. As per the normal practice Rakesh Jain would have returned those documents in couple of days. However, it did not happen that time and Rakesh Jain did not turn up to return those documents collected from complainant Rekha. Therefore, complainant Rekha herself visited the residence of Rakesh Jain which was found locked and said residence found locked during her several visits thereafter. Therefore, on 02/02/2008 complainant Rekha’s worries grew since all above referred documents remained in possession of Rakesh Jain. She further apprehends that Rakesh Jain may forge the blank cheque book and misutilise the same, and further create false entries in the Books of Accounts and, therefore, she addressed above referred letter dated 04/02/2008 to the opponent bank. If one has to believe all these statements made in the said letter, then at least till 15/01/2008 complainant Rekha was in possession of the cheque book issued by the opponent bank, in possession of all the slip books, whereby cheques or cash were either deposited in her Current account with the opponent bank and she is fully aware of the transactions in her Current account with the opponent bank. As earlier pointed out, opponent bank has routinely sent her periodical statement of her account which were duly received by her. This further shows her connivance with all those transactions recorded in her bank account. Therefore, only after her dispute with Rakesh Jain and which resulted into defending action of criminal complaint filed against her by Rakesh Jain, she now preferred to make a grievance making a scapegoat of the bank officials and alleging deficiency in service for allowing the transactions in her bank account at the instance of Rakesh Jain against the opponent bank. These circumstances, certainly throw away the case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank tried to be made out in her consumer complaint by the complainant Rekha. For the reasons stated above, we hold that complainant miserably failed to establish any case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank and, as such, consumer complaint deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly and pass following order:- ORDER Consumer complaint stands dismissed. In the given circumstances both the parties bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced on 15th July, 2011. |
