State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Sreekara Textiles Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. Rep. By Its Branch Manager ... on 19 March, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA 337 of 2010 against C.C. 659/2007, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad Between: M/s. Sreekara Textiles Pvt. Ltd. 21-1-821/UGF, 24 & 25 Ground Floor R. J. Market, Rikabgunj Hyderabad-500 002. Rep. by its Director A. Prashanth. *** Appellant/ Complainant And 1) HDFC Bank Ltd. Opp. A.P. High Court Charimnar Branch 21/1/516 to 518 Rikabgunj Hyderabad-500 002. Rep. by its Branch Manager 2) HDFC Bank Ltd. HDFC Bank House, Senapathi Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-13. *** Respondents/ Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. V. Srihari Counsel for the Resp: M/s. V. S. Raju CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT & SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) Appellant is un-successful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he opened an S.B. account with the respondent bank. While so on 6.6.2007 he noticed in the computer generated account that a sum of Rs. 98,000/- was withdrawn through cheque No. 699798 and then he had noticed that his accountant Mr. Dhondiram Kabra had stolen three cheques, one of which was above cheque and forged and withdrawn the amount. Then he complained to the bank and later reported the matter to the police who registered it as a case in Crime No. 105/2007 u/s 408, 468 and 420 IPC. The accused had vacated his house and absconding since then. Opining that honouring the forged cheque amounts to deficiency in service filed the complaint for realization of Rs. 98,000/- together with interest, compensation and costs.
3) The respondent bank resisted the case by stating that Mr. Kabra against whom allegation of forgery, theft etc. were made was not impleaded as a party. In fact the complainant was having loan account and it was operated by its directors Mr. Venkatesharlu and the complainant independently. The complainant has been withdrawing the amounts through his employees and on representation that two cheques were missing they have stopped payment of amounts under the said cheques. The customers have to keep the cheque books in a safe place. Whenever they have lost, they have to notify the bank immediately. It had never received any representation that the cheque was missing. The signature on verification appears to have been that of the complainant. Therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A9 marked, while the bank filed the affidavit evidence of its Branch Manager and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant was guilty of not informing the loss of cheque and the contention that it was forged was neither proved nor substantiated and therefore dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the investigation as well as enquiry against the accused was pending. It ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the respondent for not producing the specimen signatures in order to prove that signature was forged and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a company and its accounts are being run by two directors viz., the complainant, and another A. Venkateshwarlu. The complaint is that three cheques from the office were stolen by their accountant and one of the cheques bearing No. 699798 for Rs. 98,000/- was forged and the amount was withdrawn. Had the bank been vigilant it could have easily found out from verification of specimen signature that the disputed signature is forged.
9) At the outset, we may state that Ex. B2 disputed cheque filed before the Dist. Forum. It was drawn on RAM or bearer to pay a sum of Rs. 98,000/- . The same was withdrawn on 7.6.2007. It has also filed Ex. B3, account opening form bearing signatures of the complainant and that of A. Venkateshwarlu, Managing Director/Director of the company. Despite the fact that the bank had filed Exs. B1 to B3 the complainant did not take steps to get the signatures compared with an handwriting expert (to get opinion that it was forged). It is for the complainant to explain as to how the said cheque which ought to have been in his safe custody, had been lost. The complainant asserts that he gave a report to the police basing on which a case in Crime No. 105/2007 was registered u/s 408, 468 and 420 IPC. The complainant did not file any material as to what happened to the case and the outcome of investigation of the police.
10) It is evident from the documents filed by the bank Exs. B2 & B3 the alleged cheque as well as specimen signatures on the account opening form the police did not even seize nor sent it for verification with an handwriting expert.
When the bank has filed the disputed cheque, the complainant did not take any action which we have already stated. The complainant could not establish that the signature did not pertain to him. He did not even implead the person who said to have forged his signature, simply by stating that he was absconding. The complainant had failed to establish that the employee has been absconding. The complainant did not take any steps pursuant to the complaint made by him to the police. When the complainant could not establish that Ex. B2 was forged nor explained the circumstances under which he parted the cheque, which allowed a third party to receive the amount, it cannot be said that the bank was guilty of any negligence. It cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The complainant intended to collect the amount from the bank, which he could not have otherwise collected from their accountant. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
11) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER 19/03/2012 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.