State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nilgiri Gardens Co-Op. Hsg Soc. Ltd vs Abhudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. on 19 January, 2018
CC/14/261
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/14/261
Nilgiri Gardens Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
Having its office at Sector-24,
Amra Marg, C.B.D. Belapur,
Navi Mumbai - 400 614 through
its Secretary Mr.V.S. Gopakumar. ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Having its Head Office at K.K. Tower,
Abhyudaya Bank Lane, Off. G.D. Ambekar
Marg, parel Village, Mumbai - 400 012
Through its Chairman Mr.Sitaram Ghanadat.
2. Mr.Mohan Madivale
The Branch Manager
Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Having address at Plot No.3A,
Sector-15, Opp. Nerul Railway Station,
Nerul, Navi Mumbai - 400 706. ............Opponent (s)
BEFORE:
Usha S. Thakare PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
P. B. Joshi JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Mr.Shivaji Masal, Advocate for
Complainant: complainant.
For the Mr.Sachin Kanse, Advocate for
Opponent: opponents.
ORDER
Per Shri P.B. Joshi, Hon'ble Judicial Member Complainant-Society has account with opponent No.1-Bank. Opponent No.2 is the Manager of opponent No.1. One Mr.Harish Tumane has been appointed as Manager of complainant-Society on 06/11/2013. Because of unsatisfied work of Mr.Tumane, he was removed from the service on 27/01/2014. On 25/04/2014 complainant-Society obtained details of the account with opponent/Bank and noticed some transactions Page 1 of 7 CC/14/261 which were not authorised by the complainant-Society. Then office bearers of the complainant-Society approached opponent/Bank and perused necessary record and came to know that two Fixed Deposits of complainant-Society with opponent/Bank of Rs.10 Lakhs and Rs.14 Lakhs were encashed prematurely. Then it was also noticed that by different cheques, amount of Rs.25,56,000/- were transferred from the account of complainant-Society to the account of said Mr.Tumane and in the account of Society Management Service, a proprietary firm of said Mr.Harish Tumane. It is contention of the complainant-Society that Mr.Tumane was not authorised to deal with financial matters of complainant-Society. He was not authorised signatory for the complainant-Society. As per complainant-Society said Mr.Tumane by forging signatures of the office bearers of the complainant-Society encashed those Fixed Deposits prematurely and transferred said amount from the account of complainant- Society in the account of Mr.Tumane and in the account of his firm- Society Management Service. Then, complainant-Society filed a Police complaint against said Mr.Tumane about said act of forgery and transferred of the amount. Then, complainant-Society asked the opponent/Bank to pay said amount which was transferred from the account of complainant-Society with interest as the opponent/Bank allowed those transactions without verifying the signatures on the cheques and letter with specimen signatures given to the Bank by the complainant-Society. It was contended that thus there was deficiency on the part of opponent/Bank. As opponent/Bank did not pay said amount to the complainant, the consumer complaint is filed by the complainant-Society with prayer that opponent/Bank be directed to pay said amount of Rs.25,56,000/- which were transferred from the account of complainant-Society, Rs.1,90,801.48 on account of interest on said amount from the date of transfer till the date of filing of complaint and Rs.25,772.73 as loss of interest due to pre- matured encashment of Fixed Deposits. Complainant-Society also Page 2 of 7 CC/14/261 claimed Rs.20 Lakhs on account of mental agony suffered by members of complainant-Society.
2. Opponent No.1 resisted the complaint by filing written version which is at page-61to67 of complaint compilation. Opponent No.1 has not disputed that the complainant-Society has account with opponent No.1 and that there were Fixed Deposits with opponent No.1. Opponent No.1 has also not disputed pre-matured encashment of those two Fixed Deposits and transfer of amount of Rs.25,56,000/- from the account of complainant- Society to the account of Mr.Tumane and account of his firm-M/s.Society Management & Services. However, opponent No.1 denied that there was deficiency on its part. It was contended that the amounts were transferred on the basis of those cheques after verifying signatures on the cheques and the specimen signatures of office bearers of complainant-Society on record. It was contended that the complainant has alleged about bogus and forged signatures put by said Mr.Tamane on alleged cheques for withdrawal of money from account of complainant-Society. Opponent No.1 has denied that opponent No.1 has any role in the alleged forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust being played by said Mr.Tumane against the complainant-Society. Opponent No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Opponent No.2 by filing reply at page-69 of complaint compilation, adopted written version filed by opponent No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, considering the record and keeping in view the scope of the complaint, following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon are noted for the reasons as below :-
Page 3 of 7CC/14/261 Sr.No. Points Finding
1. Whether there is deficiency on the part of Yes opponents?
Whether complainant-Society is entitled
2. Yes, as per final for amount of Rs.25,56,000/-, order.
Rs.1,90,801.48 and Rs.25,772.73?
3. Whether complainant-Society is entitled Yes, as per final for compensation as claimed? order.
4. Complaint is partly What order?
allowed.
REASONS :-
5. Point No.1 (Deficiency) :- From the pleadings of the parties and from the submissions made before us it is clear that most of the facts are admitted. Complainant-Society has account with the opponent/Bank. Even Fixed Deposits of Rs.10 Lakhs and Rs.14 Lakhs were with the opponent/Bank. It is also admitted that amount of Rs.25,56,000/- were transferred from the account of complainant-Society to the account of Mr.Tamane and to the account of M/s.Society Management Services, a proprietary firm of said Mr.Tamane by different cheques. The disputed point is whether those cheques bear signatures of authorised signatories of complainant-Society or not. As per complainant-Society, authorised signatories have not signed those cheques and said Mr.Tamane has forged signatures of the authorised signatories of complainant-Society and transferred amount to his accounts. Secretary of complainant-Society, namely, Mr.Gopakumar, one of the authorised signatories of complainant- Society has filed affidavit in support of complaint. Specimen signatures of Chariman-Mr.R.N. Chaturvedi, Secretary-Mr.V.S. Gopakumar and Treasurer-Mr.KIrishna D. Kadam were given to opponent/Bank along with photos of those persons and that is mentioned in the affidavit of said Mr.Gopakumar.
6. It was mentioned in the affidavit of said Mr.Gopakumar that during Page 4 of 7 CC/14/261 office hours of complainant-Society, keys of cupboards remained with said Mr.Tumane and after closing hours, said Mr.Tumane used to hand over the keys to the office bearers of the Society. Original documents of the society such as Fixed Deposit Receipts, cheque-book, pass-book remained in the cupboard in the office. As per affidavit of said Mr.Gopakumar, Mr.Tumane was taking undue advantage of possession of keys of cupboard taken away nine cheque leafs from said cupboard and used those cheques for transferring the amount from the account of complainant- Society to his account by forging signatures of authorised signatories. Said affidavit of Mr.Gopakumar is at page-72to80 of complaint compilation. Document about Resolution of the Society for filing consumer complaint and other documents such as xerox copies of Fixed Deposit Receipts, letters sent to opponent No.2 and xerox copies of cheques with the help of which the amounts were transferred are filed on record by the complainant-Society. Copies of extract of account are also filed on record. It was contended that police complaint is also filed against said Mr.Tumane. Copy of complaint is also filed on record and that is at page-107to112 of complaint compilation. F.I.R. is registered against said Mr.Tumane and copy of said F.I.R. is at page-113to118 of complaint compilation.
7. It is material to note that the opponent/Bank has not filed any document on record to support their defence. Even no affidavit of concerned official who as per opponent/Bank has verified the signatures on those cheques with the specimen signatures on record has been filed. So, in absence of any affidavit or any documents to support the defence of the opponent/Bank and in view of admitted position that the amounts were transferred from the account of complainant-Society to the account of Mr.Tumane and to the account of his firm on the basis of cheques and in view of affidavit of Mr.Gopakumar, Secretary of complainant-Society that Page 5 of 7 CC/14/261 the office bearers of complainant-Society i.e. authorised signatories have not signed on those cheques, but said Mr.Tumane has forged signatures of office bearers of the complainant-Society, we have to accept the contention of the complainant-Society. Thus, it is clear that opponent/Bank has not verified signatures on the cheques with the specimen signatures on record and allowed said Mr.Tumane to transfer the amounts from the account of the complainant-Society to his account as well as to the account of his firm and thus, there is deficiency on the part of opponent/Bank. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.
8. Point No.2 (Entitlement) :- In view of answer of Point No.1 in affirmative, complainant-Society is entitled for Rs.25,56,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand only) which were transferred from the account of complainant-Society to account of Mr.Tumane and his firm. Complainant-Society is also entitled for Rs.1,90,802/- [Rounded off] (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred Two only) on account of interest on said amount from the date of transfer till filing of the complaint. Opponent/Bank has not given any details to show that said calculations are not correct. Complainant-Society is also entitled for Rs.25,773/- [Rounded off] (Rupees Twenty five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Three only) on account of pre-matured encashment of Fixed Deposits as contended by the complainant-Society. Hence, we answer Point No.2 accordingly.
9. Point No.3 (Compensation) :- Complainant-Society has claimed Rs.20 Lakhs on account of mental agony suffered by members of the complainant-Society. No doubt said account was of complainant-Society, but members of complainant-Society must have suffered mental agony because of this episode. Hence, we find that complainant-Society is entitled for sum amount on that count. However, we find Rs.20 Lakhs as Page 6 of 7 CC/14/261 claimed is exorbitant amount. We find it proper to award Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation. Hence, we answer Point No.3 accordingly.
10. Point No.4 :- In view of answers of Point Nos.1to3, consumer complaint deserves to be allowed partly. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Consumer complaint is partly allowed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by opponent/Bank to the complainant-Society.
2. Opponent/Bank is directed to pay amount of Rs.27,72,575/-
[Rs.25,56,000/- + Rs.1,90,802/- + Rs.25,773/- = Rs.27,72,575/-] (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Five only) to the complainant-Society within two months from the date of order.
3. Opponent/Bank is also directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the complainant-Society as compensation on account of mental agony suffered by members of the complainant-Society.
4. Opponent/Bank is directed to comply the above order within two months from the date of order, failing which the aforesaid entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 19th January 2018 [ Usha S. Thakare ] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER [ P. B. Joshi ] JUDICIAL MEMBER dd Page 7 of 7