State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Yogeshchandra Pratapray Pandya on 8 December, 2004
To be reported:Yes/No
BEFORE
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE , AHMEDABAD
APPEAL NO. 82 OF
2003
State
Bank of India
Industrial
Estate Branch
Ankleshwar Appellant
versus
Yogeshchandra
Pratapray Pandya
19,
Shivshaktinagar
Opp. High
School
Zadeshwar
, Bharuch Respondents
BEFORE:
Justice M.S. Parikh,
President
Dr. M.K. Joshi, Member
Smt. Leenaben Desai, Member
Appearance:
Mr. R.C. Kodekar, advocate
for the appellant
Mr. Rajiv Mehta, representative
for the respondent
ORAL
ORDER:[By Justice M.S. Parikh, President] Date: December 8, 2004 This appeal arises from order dated 2.1.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharuch in Complaint Application No. 313 of 2000 directing the opponent State Bank of India to pay to the complainant Rs.21,500/- wrongfully paid for the cheques payments of which were stopped from the side of the complainant, interest @ 9% p.a. and cost and compensation in the sum of Rs.100/- each along with refund of Rs.80/- being the charges recovered by the opponent bank from the complainant while also making a rider that the bank would be at liberty to prosecute the complainant and Mr. R.C. Patel in case it was found or suspected that they were in collusion to defraud the bank in respect of payment of the cheques which were stopped for payment by the complainant.
2 We have heard the learned advocate and the representative for the parties. We have gone through the impugned order. We had an occasion to peruse the counterfoil book from which the blank cheques were lost by the complainant and the statement of accounts from the pass book as also the original cheques in question coupled with the specimen signature card.
We have returned those original documents to the concerned parties after verifying the fact that the opponent bank had made payment of the cheques payments of which were stopped from the side of the complainant.
3 In the background of aforesaid scrutiny of the case, the facts of the case might briefly be noted.
4 It was the complainant's case that he had Savings Bank A/c. No. 19-4456 with the opponent bank with facility of cheque book.
He wrote letter dated 13.1.1999 to the opponent bank bringing to the notice of the concerned officer of the bank the fact that he had lost cheque book containing cheque numbers 202383 to 202400 (in all 18 blank cheques). The opponent bank deducted Rs.360/- @ Rs.20/- per cheque for rendition of service with regard to lost folios of aforesaid cheques.
Thus, the opponent bank noted the instructions of the complainant for stopping the payment of any of these cheques. Yet, the opponent bank made payment of four cheques amounting to Rs.21,500/- out of the aforesaid lost cheques. It was the complainant's case that the signature of the complainant did not tally with the specimen signatures and the cheques were forged by some one. The complainant therefore prayed before the learned Forum for refund of Rs.21,500/- and compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with cost in the sum of Rs.10,000/- by filing the aforesaid complaint.
5 The opponent bank resisted the complaint inter-alia on the ground that although the complainant informed the opponent bank that payment of aforesaid cheques was stopped, the opponent bank gave prescribed form No.COS-85 'cheques' to the complainant for giving an application in the prescribed form but the complainant did not return such an application in the prescribed form duly signed by him to the opponent bank. The complainant gave pass book for making entries therein on seven occasions between March 1999 and July 1999 and only thereafter for the first time he wrote to the opponent bank on 3.8.99 that the payment of four cheques was wrongfully made by the opponent bank. The bank officer Mr. D.J. Vyas cleared the cheques in question after verifying the signatures thereof. It has been alleged that the complainant gave different types of signatures for comparison with a view to create confusion in that respect. After some inquiry it came to the notice of the opponent bank that one Mr. Thakkar who was the bank employee in the past serving in Punjab National Bank was associated with the complainant. The complainant acquired knowledge of banking from the said person and with a view to take advantage of endorsement having not been made with regard to stop payment in the bank ledger, gave application of he having lost the blank cheques and thereafter in collusion with his own person Mr. R.C. Patel claimed the money from his account. He has thus filed a false complaint against the opponent bank.
6 After appreciating the evidence placed on record, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the blank cheques were lost by the complainant, that out of the said blank cheques, four cheques were encashed by other person by forging the signature of the complainant, that payment of four cheques was made by the opponent bank in spite of the fact that the complainant intimated the bank for stopping payment of the cheques lost by him, that endorsement with regard to stop payment was made in the bank register by Mr. Bhupendrakumar, that there was no reason for the opponent bank for not filing any complaint against the complainant even after the complainant made grievance with regard to wrongful payment made by the opponent bank in respect of the lost cheques payment whereof was stopped by the complainant and that payment of such cheques would not be made by opponent bank as admitted by witness of the opponent bank. The learned Forum therefore has passed the order which has been submitted to challenge in this appeal.
7 It has been submitted on behalf of the opponent bank that the application for stop payment of the cheques in question was not in the prescribed form and the complainant did not return such prescribed form duly filled in and signed by him. In our considered opinion, when the opponent bank acted upon the application written on plain paper by the complainant and recovered charges for rendering services of stop payment of concerned cheques, giving of application in the prescribed form was merely a formality.
On examination of the relevant form it would appear that only clause which was required to be signed by the complainant was to the effect that in spite of registering the instructions for stop payment of cheques, opponent bank did not give guarantee against loss in such cases. In the present case it is not understandable how payment of the cheques in question came to be made when endorsement of stop payment was made in the ledger folio which would clearly indicate that particular cheques were not to be paid at all. The concerned employee of the opponent bank has failed to explain how payment of four different cheques was made on four different occasions when the stop payment instructions were recorded in the register of the opponent bank. The opponent bank has admittedly recovered consideration for rendering services of not making payment of cheques for which the instructions were received by the bank from the consumer about stopping of payment of such cheques.
8 It has further been submitted on behalf of the opponent bank that even the complainant failed to notice payment of the aforesaid four lost cheques in spite of the fact that he had occasion to get his passbook up-dated on as many as seven occasions before noticing payment of the cheques in question having been made by the opponent bank. In our considered opinion there is no substance in this argument as the consumer might not have verified the entries at the relevant point but when he had an occasion to verify the entries, he found that four of the lost cheques were paid by the opponent bank and he immediately brought to the notice of the concerned officer of the opponent bank about wrongful payment having been made in respect of the aforesaid four cheques.
9 It has then been submitted that the signatures in the disputed cheques were verified by concerned officer. However, on comparing the signature of the disputed cheques with the specimen signature, the difference in the natural mode of writing the signature could be noticed.
In the present case, there are two aspects. The first aspect is that when the stop payment instruction was noted in the register, even if the cheques were duly signed by the account holder, they could not have been honoured by the opponent bank. Secondly, the passing officer was put to great caution of closely verifying the signature on the cheques with the specimen signature. It clearly appears that there is lapse in respect of both these aspects of the matter on the part of the opponent bank. In our considered opinion the learned Forum has rightly found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponent bank. Yet, the learned Forum has put up a rider that if there was still suspicion against the complainant and Mr. R.C. Patel of playing fraud in collusion with each other, the opponent bank would take up the matter in accordance with law.
10 In above view of the matter and bearing in mind the facts of the case, we pass following order.
11 This appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The amount of cost of Rs.500/-
deposited by the bank as per order dated 5.10.2004 passed by this Commission be paid over to the complainant by A/c. Payee cheque, after due verification.
[M.S. Parikh] President [Dr. M.K. Joshi] [Leenaben Desai] Member Member