Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: procured document in Smt. Rekha Devi vs Canara Bank on 23 September, 2013Matching Fragments
5. It is further stated that the defendant, however, negligently disbursed the enhanced pension even after 28.08.2003 till December 2009 and the plaintiff being an illiterate lady withdraw whatever amount was credited to her.
6. It is further stated that the defendant in January 2010 started disbursing the pension at normal rate and the factum of excess amount came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in May 2010 when the officials of the defendant bank called the plaintiff in the bank. It is averred that the plaintiff along with her daughter in law went to the defendant bank on 19.05.2010 and the defendant threatened her and her daughter in law with the fear of police and obtained cheque of Rs.19,000/ from the plaintiff and also procured the signatures on certain documents and thereafter the defendants started debiting amount from the savings account of the plaintiff with the defendant bank and till date, the bank have debited Rs.64,000/.
9. It is further pleaded that since the disbursement of the excess amount was because of the negligent act of the defendant, therefore, they are not entitled to recover the same and since the document procured by the defendant from the plaintiff is by exercise of coercion, misrepresentation, therefore, the alleged writing is not binding the plaintiff.
10. The plaintiff further averred that she had issued a legal notice dated 18.03.2010 which was duly replied by the defendant vide reply dated 12.04.2010 and the plaintiff further stated to have sent rejoinder dated 28.6.2010 and on these facts the plaintiff averred to filed the present suit.