Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

        In the case of MMRDA, no address proof of the complainant Authority was taken by the bank.  Though, a photocopy of PAN card of one Mr. Naveen H. Bagadiya who purportedly attested the said photocopy as the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer of MMRDA, seems to have been taken, no proof of Mr. Naveen H. Bagadiya being the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer of MMRDA such as his identity card was taken by the bank.  There is no evidence or even allegation of the Assistant Chief Accounts officer of MMRDA having visited the Branch for the purpose of the verification, which the bank officials were to carry out before opening the account in the name of MMRDA.  No document evidencing the address of Mr. Naveen H. Bagadiya was taken by the bank, before opening the account.  Thus, the procedure prescribed by the bank for opening the Fixed Deposit account was not followed.  The prescribed verification required presence of an authorized signatory of MMRDA in the bank, along with proof of his address as well as his identity, verification of the copies of the KYC documents with the originals and the signatures appearing on the KYC documents by verifying the same with the signature to be taken in the presence of the bank official.  The bank has not told this Commission, as to who had brought the copy of the PAN card to it, but, even if it is presumed that a person representing himself to be the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer of MMRDA had approached the bank for the purpose of opening an account, the bank was required to obtain the proof of his being a functionary of MMRDA as well as the proof of his address.  He should have been made to sign in the presence of the bank official, in order to verify the signature on the KYC document such as PAN card with the signature made in the presence of the bank official.  The bank was not expected to open the account without the authorized signatory of MMRDA actually attending the branch along with the original documents of his address and his identity and without verification of his signature by comparing the same with the signature on the KYC documents.  If it is presumed that someone brought the PAN card of Mr. Naveen H. Bagadiya to the bank and claimed that Mr. Bagadiya was the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer of MMRDA, the bank should have insisted upon his personal appearance along with proof of his address and identity.  However, in the present case, the bank did not even obtain any documents which would establish the identity of Mr. Naveen H. Bagadiya as the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer of MMRDA.  No proof of his address was obtained.  In fact, there is no evidence even of the original PAN card of Mr. Naveen H. Bagadiya having been produced before the bank for the purpose of verification.

18.    The bank having received Rs. 351.5 crores from MMRDA by way of direct transfer, it was its duty to deliver the original Fixed Deposit Receipts in the office of MMRDA against due acknowledgement or to deliver the same to person duly authorized by MMRDA in this regard after verifying his authority and identity.  The case of the bank is that the original Fixed Deposit Receipts were delivered to one Rahul Mukesh Gohil, who claimed to be an authorized representative of the MMRDA.  However, there is no evidence of the bank having verified the identity of Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil as a functionary of MMRDA.  No identity card of Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil, showing him to be a functionary of MMRDA was obtained by the bank.  Had such a document been obtained, it would have been available in the record of the bank.  Delivering Fixed Deposit Receipts of more than Rs. 350 crores, opened in the name of a statutory body to a rank outsider, without verifying the alleged association between him and the account holder was an act of gross negligence and clearly shows a nexus between the bank officer who delivered the Fixed Deposit Receipts and the person who allegedly collected the same from the bank.  Though according to the bank, Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil had brought an authority letter purportedly to be signed by the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer of MMRDA, no attempt was made by the bank to verify the signature appearing on the said letter. The least expected from the bank, before handing over Fixed Deposit Receipts of more than Rs.350 crores to Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil was to depute a bank official to visit the office of MMRDA and verify the signatures appearing on the said letter.  Alternatively, the bank should atleast have contacted the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer of MMRDA on telephone and verified his signatures on the aforesaid letter from him, before delivering the Fixed Deposit Receipts to Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil.  Had the bank not been negligent in delivering the Fixed Deposit Receipts to Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil, it probably would not have possible to siphon off the money belonging to MMRDA, since as per the procedure of the bank, pledge of original Fixed Deposit Receipts with it was necessary for availing the overdraft / loan facility against the Fixed Deposit Receipts.

          It was contended by the learned counsel for the bank that the signature on the aforesaid authority letter dated 10.4.2014 whereby Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil was purportedly authorized to collect the Fixed Deposit Receipts from the bank being similar to the admitted signature of the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer of MMRDA on the placement letter dated 19.3.2014, the bank was justified in acting upon the said letter.  I however, find no merit in the contention.  It has come in the statement of Mr. Jitender Salvi of MMRDA that the aforesaid letter dated 19.3.2014 was delivered by him to Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil at the time when he brought the Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs.351.5 crores to the office of MMRDA.  It is therefore, obvious that the Fixed Deposit Receipts to Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil had been delivered by the bank even before receipt of the original letter dated 19.3.2014 for the placement of the term deposits.  In any case, the bank could not have delivered the original Fixed Deposit Receipts to Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil without first verifying his identity as a functionary of MMRDA, and verifying the signature appearing on the Authority Letter.

In case of MMRDA, the placement letters of Fixed Deposit Receipts were delivered to Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil who also claimed to be an officer of Dena Bank.  It has come in the statement of Jitender Salvi, Accounts Officer of MMRDA, that he had called the Malabar Hill Branch of Dena Bank where a lady officer asked him to contact Rahul Mukesh Gohil and also gave his mobile number which he passed on to Deputy Accountant Ms. Mansi Khadekar.   He further stated that Mansi Khadekar as well as he himself had contacted Rahul Mukesh Gohil from the landline number of MMRDA.  He does not specifically say that Mr. Rahul Mukesh Gohil had represented himself to be an officer of Dena bank.  If no such representation was made by him, the placement letter should not have been delivered to him.  If he represented himself to be an officer of Dena Bank, either his identity should have been verified by visiting the concerned Branch or atleast a copy of his identity card should have been obtained and kept in the record of MMRDA.  In the absence of such an action, his statement cannot be taken at its face value.