State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs A.P.S. Malik on 6 July, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 06-07-2007 Appeal No. A-1016/2004 (Arising from the order dated 04-11-2004 passed by District Forum(North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No.70/2003) State Bank of India, Appellant Tis Hazari District Courts Complex, Through Delhi-110054. Mr. Ashok K. Bahl, Advocate. Versus Shri A.P.S. Malik, Respondent Lawyers chamber No. 249, In person. Civil side, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) On account of having allowed the encashment of the cheques without comparing the signatures of the account holder thereof, the appellant-Bank has been vide impugned order dated 04-11-2004 directed to pay Rs. 52,000/- with interest @ 6% and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant-Bank has preferred this appeal.
3. There is no dispute that the respondent was maintaining his Savings Bank Account with the appellant-Bank and as many as 12 cheques were allowed to be encashed allegedly without comparing signatures of the authorized signatory. The cheques were encashed by the clerk of the respondent Shri Kamal Jain and his brother Sh. Pankaj. All the cheques were bearer cheques.
4. While denying its connivance or negligence the appellant-Bank took the plea that the respondent himself was negligent in keeping the cheque book and pass book outside the reach of his clerk and with the naked eye the signatures of the cheques were that of respondents and this fact is borne out from the report of the hand-writing expert.
5. No Bank can be allowed to take a plea which is not permissible qua the customer. Whether the customer keeps the cheque in safe custody or not is none of the business of the Bank.
6. The obligation cast upon the Bank by the law is to see that no amount is withdrawn from the account of the customer by an unauthorized person or by producing fabricated or false signatures. At the same time the Bank cannot be accused of deficiency in service on prima facie view if from the naked eye the signatures appear to be alike unless and until there are allegations against official of the Bank of having connived with or entered into conspiracy with unauthorized person in getting the cheques encashed under the forged signatures. The report of the handwriting expert shows that the disputed signatures bearing on the cheques showed superficial similarity and difference if any cannot be detected with naked eye. But minute examination though high power magnifying glass would show the intricate difference in formation of letters that those disputed signatures are forged and not genuine.
7. To expect a Bank official to get each and every cheque examined by the handwriting expert before passing it is also too much. The Bank official is to only compare from the naked eye the signatures on the cheque with the signatures available on the record. Until and unless there are marked and pronounced difference in the signatures the Bank cannot be held guilty for deficiency in service until there are clear allegations of conspiracy or connivance of the official of the Bank with the person who presents the bearer cheque.
8. In the instant case cheques were presented by the clerk of the respondent and his brother and as per report of the handwriting expert the disputed signatures showed superficial similarity in pictorial appearance. Though through high power magnifying lenses intricated difference was detected. In view of the report of the handwriting expert and in the absence of any allegation of fraud or conspiracy of the Bank official with the person who had encashed the cheques which were as many as 12 cheques and the respondent even did not find out for long as to the missing cheques were encashed or not we deem that lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the negligence of the official of the Bak in not comparing the signatures minutely on the cheques which are being presented, which were about 12 in numbers, shall meet the ends of justice.
9. In the result we allow the appeal by reducing the amount of compensation to Rs. 25,000/- which shall include the cost of litigation and shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
10. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
11. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
13. Announced on the 6th July, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj