OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAGATSINGHPUR
PRESENT:- SRI S.N.MISHRA,PRESIDENT.
A N D
SRI B.C. SWAIN, MEMBERS.
MRS. M.M.RATH, MEMBERS.
Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2009
Date of Filing: -26.02.2009
Date of Judgment: -16.11.09
Sudam charan Mallick
s/o-Late Laxman Mallick
vill-Dhuanpari
Po- Dedhasar Deuli
Po-Tirtol
Dist-Jagatsinghpur
……………………………..complainant
Versus
1. Branch Manager
United Bank of India
Jagatsinghpur Branch
At/Po/Dist-Jagatsinghpur
2. Regional Manager
United Bank of India
11,Hemanta Basu Sarani
Kolkata
3. Ranjan Kumar Mallick
s/o-Duryadhan Mallick
At/po-Redhua
Ps- Raghunathpur
Dist- Jagatsinghpur
…………………………..Opp.parties
For complainant :- Sri S.K.Nanda, Advocate
For O.P.No.1 & 2 :- Sri J.Mishra , Advocate
Opp.party No.3 :- Deleted from cause Title
In short the case of the complainant is that in order to get his usual salary he has opened an account vide his S.B.Account bearing No.117731 with the United Bank of India , Jagatsinghpur Branch (O.P.No.1 ) since 16.08.2005. he has never opted for cheque facility but usually withdraws money vide withdrawal slips . while his account contained Rs.9,439/- as on 02.01.2008. he has deposited Rs.85,000/- on 28.01.08 out of his provident fund and operated his account till 31.12.08 containing Rs.1,11,507/- out of which he has withdrawn Rs.10,000/- on 31.12.08 vide withdrawal slip leaving the balance at Rs.1,01,507/-. He desired withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- on 07.01.09 and submitted withdrawal slip at the counter of O.P.No.1 (bank) and was refused withdrawal by concerned clerk due to remaining balance at Rs.1,507/- in the account. He became astonished and enquired about the matter and on verification in computer system he came to know that Rs.1 lakh has been withdrawn on 01.01.09 through a bearer cheque bearing No.82083 dtd. 31.12.08 leaving such balance in the account. He requested the O.P.No.1 (bank) to enquire about the fraud since he has not withdrawn of said money vide alleged bearer cheque as has not been afforded with such facility. He has filed a FIR before Jagatsinghpur police station in this matter and investigation is on vide P.S. case No.2(2) dtd. 08.01.09 U/s.420, 468,471 and 419 IPC. He has also intimated this matter to Asst. Manager of the Banking Ombudsman, BBSR,DSP,Vigilance,Jagatsinghpur and Asst. General Manager, UBI,BBSR (O.P.No.2) in this regard. It is further stated that on 08.01.09 the O.P.No.1 (bank) has brought the alleged cheque to notice which goes to show that vide cheque bearing No.82083 dtd.31.12.08 complainant has withdrawn a sum Rs.1 lakh through the bearer Sri Ranjan Kr.Mallick . in fact said Sri Mallick is not at all known to complainant in any manner, nor , such cheque has been provided to him necessitating any withdrawal. According to complainant while withdrawing a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 31.12.08 in person through withdrawal slip he would have withdrawn any more amount hence he has never submitted any other withdrawal on 31.12.08 , nor signed over any cheque nor presented the same on 01.01.09 for withdrawal. The complainant never opted for operation of account through cheque since inception. For deficiency in service allowing the fraudulent cheque to be encased and operated read with unfair trade practice of O.P.No.1 & 2 bank, the complainant sustained mental agony with financial loss hence this complaint.
In short the case of the O.P.No.1 & 2 is that complainant on 31.12.08 had applied for issue of cheque book and cheque bearing No. 82081 to 82100 has been issued to him on the same day. Admitting the deposits made by complainant in the alleged account and denying the presentation of withdrawal slip on 07.01.09 for Rs.5,000/- besides all other allegation alleged in the complainant the answering O.Ps. submitted that on 31.12.08 complainant visited the bank and withdrawan Rs.10,000/- and applied in cheque requisition slip to get cheque book and on verification of bank records and signature , the cheque book bearing 20 nos. of cheque from 82081 to 82100 has been issued to complainant . one Ranjan Kr. Mallick O.P.No.3, bearer of cheque vide No.82083 dtd. 31.12.08 granted to him by complainant presented the same on 01.01.09 and Rs 1 lakh after through securitization of signature of complainant has been paid to said bearer. It is further submitted that complainant having availed police recourses in this regard and the bearer O.P.No.3 being a known person to him , the O.P.Bank has got limited scope to enquire in to the alleged fraud as alleged. It is further submitted that this complaint of fraud being a complex matters the jurisdiction of this forum is ousted.
The complainant did not prefer to bring O.P.No.3 on record hence he is deleted from cause title. Out of such admitted pleadings of both the parties it is revealed that complainant vide his S.B. Account bearing No.117731 with O.P.No.1 –bank has inherited status of a consumer within meaning of this Act. To make out a case U/s.2(1) (g) & (o ) read with 2(1) ( r ) of this Act. Against the O.P.Bank . complainant besides his own affidavit has placed evidences such as (i) Xerox copy of his S.B.Account pass book showing transaction as on 01.01.09 (marked-1) , (ii) copy of FIR dtd.08.01.09 (mark-2), (iii) copy of allegation dtd. 07.01.09 with branch manager , UBI, Jagatsinghpur branch (mark-3), (iv) copy of allegation dtd. 07.01.09 with B.N. Sahoo, Asst.Manager, Banking Ombudsman, BBSR (mark-4) on record. In rebuttal to said allegation of complainant the O.P.No.1 (bank ) has also placed evidences such as (i) Xerox copy of specimen signature of complainant (mark-A), (ii) withdrawal slip dtd. 31.12.08 showing withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- by complaint on 31.12.08 (mark-B),(iii) copy of application dtd. 31.12.08 of complainant to Branch Manager,UBI,Jagatsinghpur to get cheque book (mark-c), (iv) copy of application of complainant dtd. 31.12.08 on printed form with O.P.No.1 (bank) showing issuance of cheque book No.nil but cheques 82081 To 82100 ( mark-D),( v ) copy of alleged cheque bearing No.82083 dtd. 31.12.08 of complainant showing withdrawal of Rs.1 lakh through bearer Ranjan kr.Mallick (mark-E), (vi) copy of seizure list (mark-F), (vii) copy of request letter dtd. 08.09.09 of O.P.No.1 (bank) to L.I.C, Jagatsinghpur to get backs documents to present in this forum (mark-G), besides own affidavit of the Branch Manager ,O.P.No.1 bank on record. Neither of the party desired cross examining the person who filed affidavit in this case. On detail verification of the S.B.Account pass book of complainant (mark-1) it is revealed that since inception i.e. 16.08.05 till 31.12.08 , the complainant has never availed cheque facility but on 01.01.09 for the first time the alleged sum of Rs.1,00,000/- stood withdrawn vide cheque bearing No.82083 dtd.31.12.08. it is also further evident that on 31.12.08 the complainant has withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- vide withdrawal slip (mark-B). hence the submission of complainant as to non availing of cheque facility in respect the S.B.Account bearing No.117731 can not be disbelieved. Out of complainant’s allegation’s before I.I.C. Jagatsinghpur police station and the B.M.,U.B.I., Jagatsinghpur (O.P.No.1) (Mark-2 & 3 ) it is transpired that complainant has not availed cheque facility to operates day to day transaction in respect of alleged account with O.P.No.1 (bank) . it is further revealed out of copy of complainant’s allegation dtd. 07.01.09 with one B.N.Sahoo, Asst.Manager, O/o , Ombudsman, BBSR (mark-4) almost all higher level authorities of UBI at kolkata inclusive of Reserve Bank of India, BBSR have been intimated but non of them found to have turned of. On detail acrutiny of evidences of O.P. (bank) on record it is revealed to necked eye that the signatures of complainant collected on specimen signature (mark-A) inclusive that on withdrawal slip dtd. 31.12.08 are not at all tallying with the signature shown on plain application dtd.31.12.08 (marked-c) and printed application Dtd. 31.12.08 to get cheque book (marked-c & D). so also the signature of complainant appearing on alleged cheque dtd. 31.12.08 presented by bearer Ranjan Mallick (mark-E) appears to be quite different to necked eye having no similarity with that appears on specimen card(mark-A) and withdrawal slip dtd.31.12.08 (mark-B). it is not known how the clearance section in O.P.No.1 bank and the concerned cashier being expert of experts in this line could not point out the dissimilarity and failed to appreciate differential signatures while releasing such amount from the alleged account of complainant. When we see the signature of complainant on specimen signature card (mark-1) and compare those with the signature on cheque requisition application and alleged cheque then without any aid of hand writing expert, we are of our firm opinion that the O.P.Bank failed not once but twice to verify / compare the signatures on these instruments correctly with that of the specimen signature made available to thwm (mark-1) i.e. one at the time of issue of cheque book and again at the time of encasing cheque. The O.P.Bank officials no doubt are professionally trained in this regard but found failed miserably in this instant case to maintain the dignity and trust as custodian of public money as a result the innocent complainant who has hired O.P. bank’s services for consideration but not gratuituous has not only been subjected to suffer mentally but also put to stupendous financial loss, besides, subjected to run from pole to pillar for over last 11 months to have his goal achieved. Under such premises deficiency in rendering best/ honest and fair services to complainant on utmost good faith within meaning of this Act U/s.2(1) (g) & (o) read with 2 (1) ( r ) is writ large against O.P.Bank or not properly comparing the signature of complainant on documents and instruments presented to them with that of the specimen signature collected earlier which is made readily available to them entitling complainant to be compensated in the ends of natural justice, enquiry and fairness of law. Therefore the O.P.Bank shall not be prejudiced if be asked to make payment of such amount to complainant with 9% interest since 01.01.09 till date of payment with cost of this proceeding in view of reported decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in an identical issue reported in N.C. & S.C. consumer cases (part-v) 1986 to 2004 at page 7488 in a case between Abdul Razak & other (vrs) the south Indian Bank Ltd.
( Issue of cheque book on a written request by an composer and encasing the cheque of different amount(s) signed by an imposer again – respondent failed not once but twice to correctly verify / compare the signature with them on record- one at the time of issue of cheque book and again at the time of encasing cheques- held deficiency in rendering service is writ large on the face of it by the respondent by not comparing the signature on the documents/ instruments presented to them with record of signatures kept by them- Revision petition allowed)
The O.P.Bank is left at liberty to recover the same from the employee responsible for deficiency in service in due course of it’s departmental disciplinary action.
ORDER
In the result this complaint is allowed on contest against O.P.No.1 & 2 jointly and severally with cost at Rs.1,000/- . both the O.P.No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant with 9% interest from 01.01.09 till the date of payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
Pronounced in the open forum on this 23rd day of November,2009.
Smt.M.M.Rath B.C.Swain S.N.Mishra
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT