Bangalore District Court
Arvind S Rajamanya vs The Manager Indusind Bank Ltd on 21 July, 2025
KABC010085472018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN,
B.Com, LL.B.(Spl.)
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU .
DATED: THIS THE 21 st DAY OF JULY, 2025
O.S.No.2238 of 2018
Plaintiff: Arvind S. Rajamanya
S/o late. S.M. Rajamanya
Aged about 65 years
No.121, 38 th Cross, 8 th Block
Jayanagar, Bengaluru-82.
(By Sri. Chandraiah.,
Advocate)
-VS-
Defendants: 1. The Manager (H S Sunil
Kumar)
INDUSIND Bank Ltd.,
310, 9 th Main, 39 th Cross,
5 th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 041.
2 O.S.No.2238 of 2018
2. The Manager,
Indusind Bank, Cluster
Branch,
1 st Tower, City Center Building,
Near Sanghi Petrol pump,
Station Road, Jodhpur-342
003.
3. Wilson D Souza @ Anand
Dass,
Aged about 46 years
S/o Aneamuthu Jesudass,
R/at No.3, 2 nd Floor, 1 st A
Cross,
Kanakanagar, Sulthanpalya,
R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru-32.
(Passport No. H 9295117,
Bengaluru)
(By D1 & 2-N.S.,- Advocates
D3-exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit : 23.03.2018
Nature of the Suit : Money suit
Date of commencement of : 25.03.2021
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 21.07.2025
was pronounced
3 O.S.No.2238 of 2018
Total Duration : Years Months Days
07 03 29
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
J U D G M E N T
That, the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of an amount of ₹.6,73,200/- [Six lakh seventy three thousand two hundred ] against the defendants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2) The averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows:
a) The plaintiff submits that there was an advertisement in English Daily newspaper "Deccan Herald" on 26.08.2015 inviting the applications for certain posts namely Female medical nurse, Driver and Executive. Plaintiff made enquiry by calling to mobile No.9161191518 provided in the advertisement and in 4 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 response thereto a person by name 'Wilson D Souza' said that appointments were for a NRI family settled in Frankfurt, Germany consisting of his grandfather and grandmother. The plaintiff submits that as per the telephonic conversation with Wilson D Souza plaintiff was asked to send his resume through Email and after receipt plaintiff is selected for the post of Executive with salary of ₹.2000 Euros per month. The duties of plaintiff were to maintain a store in the said premises at Germany and also look after his grandparents.
Other benefits included were fee accommodation food and get a Visa for Germany. The plaintiff submits that defendant No.3 demanded that plaintiff should have deposits of not less than ₹.10 lakh in S.B. Account as it is prerequisite to obtain Visa to Germany. Accordingly, plaintiff has agreed to deposit the same. Plaintiff submits that Wilson directly spoke to the Manager of Indusind Bank Mr. Sunil Kumar (Mobile No.9886551779) 5 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 Jayanagar Branch to open S.B. Account and also to obtain platinum debit card. Similarly he spoke to HDFC personal Banker Sandeep B.S. HDFC to accept the plaintiff's application to open S.B. Account and issue platinum debit card. Plaintiff opened two accounts as below.
Bank Account No. Type of Debit card
1. HDFC Bank 50100046004360 Platinum Debit card
2. Indusind 156017800852 Rupay Debit card Bank
b) The plaintiff submits that he has arranged to deposit ₹.5 lakh each through cheque and requested both the Banks not to share any of the details to any person/s about his account to safeguard his deposits and not to allow any withdrawals as these deposits were only in order to satisfy the conditions to get Germany Visa. The plaintiff submits that defendant No.3 has insisted on carrying a platinum card to 6 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 Germany saying that it is convenient to withdraw higher amounts in Germany as a normal cards do not permit withdrawals of higher amounts.
c) The plaintiff was asked by defendant No.3 whether he could come to Bombay for further meetings to finalize terms of appointment and thereafter informed to come to Jodhpur to attend the marriage of his close relative's daughter. Plaintiff submits that Wilson booked accommodation at Hotel Kissan Legacy near Sanghi Petrol Pump Olympic road Jodhpur for plaintiff on 22.09.2015. The plaintiff has given details of train and timings expenses were promised to be reimbursed at the Jodhpur. Plaintiff submits that accordingly he reached Jodhpur around 5:00 pm., on 22.09.2015 and defendant No.3 came to the platform at Jodhpur and received the plaintiff at Station Bhagat- Ki-Koti and took him to the hotel Kissan Legacy in a 7 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 taxi. Plaintiff submits that before entering the hotel defendant NO.3 has asked the plaintiff to take a mini statement from Indusind Bank ATM. The plaintiff collected the same as Bank was situated just close to the hotel in which he had booked accommodation for the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that defendant No.3 took plaintiff to Hotel room No.204, came inside the Hotel room to interview the plaintiff, enquired whether plaintiff wanted something to drink and defendant No.3 has ordered black tea. After freshening up and taking bath plaintiff and defendant No.3 took black tea i.e., around 6:00 pm., on 22.09.2015. At that time plaintiff was asked by defendant No.3 to put up signatures on German Visa form to do needful, accordingly plaintiff has signed. The plaintiff submits that suddenly he has lost control over his body and gone to sleep, he could not get up in the morning on 23.09.2015 as he was feeling giddiness and unable to stand up. Plaintiff got 8 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 up with the help of Hotel staff and realized something is wrong. The defendant No.3 was not available at the Hotel and none were there to say about his whereabouts.
d) Plaintiff submits that having suspicion of drugging the three customers, two were hospitalized for poisoning, Hotel management has lodged a report with Jurisdictional police who registered case at Crime No.299 for the offence punishable under Section 328, 380 of IPC on 24.09.2015 at Sardarpura Police Station, Jodhpur. Thereafter, Hotel Management as well as police have asked the plaintiff to not to leave their hotel and to be in Jodhpur only. Plaintiff was not allowed to move independently, without notice and permission of the jurisdictional police, so he was confined to police station and Hotel. It is further submitted by plaintiff that he went to Indusind Bank 9 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 situated just outside the hotel at Jodhpur on 28.09.2015 to get his account details, was shocked and surprised that huge amount of ₹.5,10,009/- was withdrawn from the same branch of Indusind Bank by one single cheque No.139376 at one stretch leaving no balance. The plaintiff asked the defendant for statements and copy of the cheque, the bank did not oblige regarding the cheque. The plaintiff subsequently checked the cheque books kept in the Hotel room, where he was shocked to see cheque bearing No.139376 of Indusind Bank leaf was missing. Plaintiff submits that Bank has not verified the signatures with his specimen signature, which was collected at the time of opening the account and have not followed procedures for withdrawal of huge amount at non-home branch, without leaving the minimum balance which a depositor should maintain in order to operate account, thereby has not followed normal 10 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 procedure of bank regarding maintaining of minimum balance. It is therefore, clear that defendant bank has not exercised due diligence and reasonable care which a man of ordinary prudence would do in a similar circumstances, being the custodian and trustee of the money of the plaintiff. On account of utter carelessness and negligence of bank the forged or superimposed cheque came to be honored and huge amount is withdrawn occasioning heavy financial loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that ₹.5,10,000/- was financial loss and thus the defendants are liable to make good of the loss which was caused due to negligence of defendant bank. Plaintiff submits that he addressed letter dated 15.10.2015 and requested the bank to make good loss by paying ₹.5,10,000/-, but bank did not opted for payment of the same. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that due to negligence acts of defendant No.1 and 2 and dishonest 11 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 intentional act of defendant No.3, he sustained loss of ₹.5,10,000/- and as such, he is also entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
e) It is the case of the plaintiff that it could have not possible for Wilson D Souza, defendant No.3 playing fraud to withdraw the amount, if there was no act of negligence on the part of defendant banks. Defendant banks have betrayed the trust reposed by the plaintiff and so the banks are vicariously liable to make good of the loss incurred to plaintiff. Therefore, defendants are jointly and severely liable to repay the loan amount. The plaintiff submits that cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court and as such, he claimed that he is entitled for decree for recovery of ₹.6,73,200/-.
12 O.S.No.2238 of 2018
3) In response to summons issued, the defendant No.1 and 2 bank have appeared and
contested suit by filing the written statement. The gist of the written statement is as under:
a) The defendant No.1 and 2 banks have admitted that plaintiff has opened savings bank account No.156017800852 on 01.09.2015 at Jayanagar, Bengaluru by depositing an amount of ₹.20,000/- and thereafter, plaintiff had deposited an amount of ₹.5,00,000/-. It is stated by the defendant No.1 and 2 banks that as per the request of plaintiff, platinum card was issued for withdrawal of larger amounts and for international transactions. The defendant No.1 and 2 banks submit that on 23.09.2015 plaintiff presented a cheque for withdrawal of ₹.5,10,000/- in cash at Jodhpur branch- defendant No.2. Considering the huge amount is sought to be withdrawn, 2 nd defendant's Deputy Branch Manager called Deputy Branch Manager 13 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 at Jayanagar for confirmation of such cheques are indeed issued by the plaintiff. The Deputy Branch Manager at Jayanagar thereafter called up plaintiff on his registered mobile and confirmed that the said cheque is issued by him. Only after obtaining confirmation that the cheque was issued by plaintiff Jodhpur branch has paid the amount. The defendants have denied that due to their negligence the plaintiff has suffered financial loss of ₹.5,10,000/-. The defendant No.1 and 2 Banks submit that signatures on the cheque matched with the specimen signature available in defendant No.1's records. Defendant No.1 and 2 further submits that prior to passing of cheque at Jodhpur Branch, confirmation was sought as stated earlier, the plaintiff was present at the time of withdrawal and also aware of the same. It is submitted by defendant NO.1 and 2 banks that defendant NO.1 has taken abundant caution before 14 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 clearing the cheque and on perusal of CCTV footage, it is seen that entire withdrawal of cheque presented for payment at Jodhpur Branch was carried out by defendant No.3, the alleged fraudster in the presence of the plaintiff at Branch and after transaction both plaintiff and alleged fraudster had exited the branch together. The defendant No.1 further submits that it was also observed from CCTV footage that plaintiff has shared PIN and the card details as mini statement was taken by alleged fraudster while plaintiff was present.
Defendant No.1 submits that plaintiff has suppressed these facts in his plaint and filed this suit. Defendants have produced CD containing video, which is evidence of plaintiff's presence in the branch. It is further submitted by the defendant No.1 and 2 that they are not negligent in carrying out their duties and as such, they prayed that suit may kindly be dismissed with cost.
15 O.S.No.2238 of 2018
4) Summons to the defendant No.3 came to be published in Newspaper, in response to the same he has not appeared before this court and he was placed ex-parte.
5) By considering pleadings and documents produced by the parties, my learned predecessor in offi ce had framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of ₹.5,01,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., from 22.09.2015 to 21.02.2018 I.e, ₹.1,63,200/-?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for current and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of realisation?
3. What Order or Decree?
6) After framing of issues, plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1. Plaintiff though produced copy 16 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 of the cheque through which amount is drawn, the same is not marked. Defendant bank has not led any oral or documentary evidence.
7) Both counsels for plaintiff and defendant Banks have also not addressed the arguments on merits. Perused the available materials on records and my findings on the above issues are:-
Issue No.1: In the Negative
Issue No.2: In the Negative
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
8). Issue No.1 :- That, this suit is filed by
the plaintiff for recovery of ₹.6,73,200/- from the defendants alleging that amount is fraudulently withdrawn by defendant No.3 due to negligence of defendant No.1 and 2 banks. In order to prove the case plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1, but has not produced any documents. Defendants have also 17 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 not adduced oral and documentary evidence. The fundamental principle of law is that the plaintiff when he comes to Court must prove his case and he must prove it to the satisfaction of the Court. His burden is not lightened because the defendant is absent or not contested the case. On the other hand, the responsibility increases. When the defendant is set ex- parte or does not contest by cross examining the witness or does not lead evidence, the burden is heavy on the Court, as it would not have the advantage of defence. Therefore, the Court should be extra careful in such cases and it should consider the pleadings, & evidence and should arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. Keeping this principles in mind, I have perused the oral and documentary evidence in detail.
9) Plaintiff claims that defendant No.3 has cheated him and after drinking some intoxicated 18 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 drinks he was unconscious for a period of two days. I have perused the oral evidence of plaintiff and documents produced. It is admitted that plaintiff has maintained account at defendant No.1 Bank which was opened on 01.09.2015. Regarding the proof of incident which plaintiff alleges FIR filed by Sardarpura Police station, Jodhpur bearing Crime No.299 for the offences punishable under Section 328 and 304A of IPC is produced which remained unmarked. It is clear from the FIR that plaintiff Arvind S Rajamanya arrived at the evening from Bengaluru and stayed in room of one Anand Das. On 23.09.2015 Gurudat @ Lokesh resident of Bengaluru also came met Anand Das and they have stayed in room No.205 and 206. It is clear from the FIR that Anand Das left the Hotel on 23.09.2015 only. It is further clear from the FIR that when Manager Ramesh got opened room No.204 and 205 he noticed that Sri. Arvind i.e., plaintiff herein and one Gurudat were lying 19 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 unconscious in room No.204 whereas Lokesh was lying unconscious in room NO.205. It is clear from the FIR produced that plaintiff was at Jodhpur in Kissan Legacy Hotel on 22.09.2015 till 24.09.2015. It is stated in the complaint that Arvindkumar plaintiff herein was slightly conscious and told on enquiry that Anand Das had told his name as Wilson D Souza and taken his bank details, ID proofs and money. It is stated that Arvind kumar the plaintiff herein has stated that defendant No.3 has given some intoxicating items to eat, made him an unconscious and taken away the money, ATM card, two mobiles. So, it is clear from the FIR and complaint that from the Hotel on 23.09.2015 amount has been taken by defendant NO.3 Wilson D Souza @ Anand Das from plaintiff. The cheque produced by the plaintiff only clearly shows that plaintiff had issued a self cheque and withdrawn the money. The Indusind Bank- defendant NO.2 has send 20 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 copy of the cheque to plaintiff which was produced. The cheque bears the signatures of plaintiff Arvind Shankara Rajamanya wherein an amount of ₹.5,10,000/- was drawn and amount is received which is evidenced by signing the back side of the cheque. Mobile number of plaintiff is also taken. The bankers have clearly stated that they have called plaintiff and enquired about whether he has issued the cheque or not as cash was sought to be withdrawn from the non- home Brach. Plaintiff has not stated why the bank managers who are working in public-private sector bank are deposing false against the plaintiff. No animosity between plaintiff and defendants were shown nor it is shown that there is some 'Collusiveness' between defendant No.1 and 2 bank and defendant NO.3. No charge sheet is filed against the offi cials of the bank. Therefore, in my considered opinion looking into the evidence adduced before this court, it is not 21 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 suffi cient to hold that defendant No.1 and 2 were negligent while honoring cheque for ₹5,10,000/-. The minimum balance norms were not produced by the plaintiff to prove that minimum balance was required to be kept in the bank or one cannot withdraw entire money or whether account is zero balance account or not. Therefore, in my considered opinion contention of the plaintiff that banks have not followed procedure while en-cashing the cheque cannot be accepted. One cannot say that Public sector bank or private sector banks have not followed procedure. Hence, in my considered view the plaintiff has failed to show that defendant NO.1 and 2 were negligent and because of their negligence plaintiff has suffered loss of ₹.5,10,000/-. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the Negative.
10) Issue No.2 :- This issue is framed with respect to entitlement of interest on ₹.5,10,000/-. While 22 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 answering issue No.1, I have concluded that the plaintiff has failed to show that defendant No.1 and 2 were negligent while passing Cheque No.139376 for ₹.5,10,000/-. Cheque belongs to plaintiff & by verifying the signatures, same is honored. Once negligence on the part of defendant No.1 and 2 is not proved then it cannot be held that the bank is liable to pay interest to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has withdrawn the amount by way of self cheque and taken money. Once money is taken out of bank if anyone fraudulently takes money from plaintiff or played fraud on plaintiff then bank is not at all liable for that action. Hence, in my considered view the plaintiff is not entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum as claimed. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in the Negative.
11) Issue No.3:- While answering issue No.1, I have concluded that, plaintiff has failed to show negligence on the part of defendant No.1 and 2. It is 23 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 also not proved that amount is taken by defendant NO.3. As per account statements, amount is received through self cheque by plaintiff only. Therefore, this court cannot hold that the defendant No.1 and 2 as well as defendant No.3 are liable to pay amount to the plaintiff. Hence, in my considered view, the suit is required to be dismissed holding that plaintiff is not entitled for any of the relief claimed in the suit. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 21 st day of July, 2025.) (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 24 O.S.No.2238 of 2018 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:-
P.W.1 Arvind S Rajamanya
II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:-
NIL
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:-
NIL IV List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
NIL (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 25 O.S.No.2238 of 2018