CANARA BANK vs T PAPA

-THE opposite party in C. O. P. No. 228/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: (a) The complainant, a retired teacher was operating her S. B. Account with the opposite party bank for over 16 years. On 14. 6. 2002 her husband went to opposite party bank and got entries in the pass book. She found that a sum of Rs. 40,400 had been wrongly debited in her pass book. She went and made inquiries with the bank officials. She was informed that a person by name Pandian submitted a requisition letter to the Manager fraudulently and received a cheque book as if the complainant had authorised him to receive the cheque book. Without verifying the signature of the complainant, the opposite party had given the cheque book and allowed him to withdraw Rs. 40,400 by receiving a cheque presented by him for the said amount. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 40,400 towards monetary loss, Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards cost.

THE opposite party filed a version contending inter alia as follows : The debit entry made in relation to the withdrawal in question was made on her mandate only as per the authority and with her knowledge. When inquiry was made with the opposite party about the withdrawal of the said amount, the opposite party verified the records and informed her that the withdrawal was effected only on the basis of a cheque dated 9. 5. 2002 issued by her. It was also informed that a cheque book was issued to her on the basis of a requisition dated 8. 5. 2002 through one Pandian. The opposite party had exercised due care and caution in the matter by verifying the signature of the complainant that has appeared both in the cheque requisition letter and the cheque leaf concerned and duly performed his duty with diligence and good faith. The opposite party also advised the complainant to prefer a police complaint if according to her, her signature was forged. The signature of the complainant in the requisition letter tallied with the specimen signature of the complainant available with the opposite party bank. There was no deficiency in service. Person who got the cheque book or the complainant was her duly authorised agent. The complainant should pursue her remedy before the Civil Court. Before the District Forum on the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A5 were marked while on the side of the opposite party Exs. B1 to B5 were marked.

The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant that the opposite party failed not once but twice to correctly verify/compare the signatures on the instruments concerned and her specimen signature with them on record, that the opposite party''s cashiers were professional and trained to read the difference between signatures that they had failed in the instant case and they had been deficient in service in paying Rs. 40,400 to a person who had forged a signature. By order dated 28. 8. 2003, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay the complainant Rs. 40,400 towards monetary loss with interest @ 9% p. a. from 9. 5. 2002 till date of payment together with a sum of Rs. 1,000 as cost. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that the payment had been made on the basis of the cheque issued by the complainant and the cheque for the withdrawal was only from out of the cheque book issued to her on the basis of her requisition letter dated 8. 5. 2002 through one Pandian. After scrutiny and by comparison with the specimen signature of the account holder, the cheque had been honoured. The sigatures tallied. The District Forum ought to have rejected the complaint since the investigation as to the alleged fraud involved examination of experts of a number of documents which would not be possible before a Consumer Forum. The matter should have been referred to handwriting expert for opinion. The President of the Forum on a perusal of the exhibits ought not to have decided the issue. The bank had exercised in good faith such care and diligence was as reasonably possible under ordinary circumstances when a cheque was presented for payment and having regard to practical realities and with the facilities available in the bank what the bank had done was correct and the District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint. Counsel also relied on a couple of judgments. The learned Counsel for the complainant sought to support the order of the District Forum by submitting that the District Forum had compared the admitted signature with the disputed signature and found that the disputed signature was a forged one and the bank having failed to detect the forgery was negligent and the complaint had been rightly allowed. Counsel also relied on a judgment of the National Commission in Abdul Razak and Anr. v. South Indian Bank Ltd. , III (2003) CPJ 20 (NC ).

WE have gone through the materials on record. We perused the disputed signature and also the admitted signature. On a comparison, we found that the disputed signature was a clear forgery. It should have struck the bank official concerned on a mere look. The amount involved was not a small amount. It was Rs. 40,400. The bank officials should have been put on the alert. We have the least doubt that there had been clear forgery. In Abdul Razak and Anr. (supra), the following observations have been made: "when we see the signatures on the account opening form of both the complainants and compare them with the signatures on the cheque requisition application and the cheques, then without and from any handwriting expert it becomes clear that the respondent failed not once but twice to correctly verify/compare the signatures on these instruments and the specimen signatures with them on record-one at the time of issue of cheque book and again at the time of encashing cheques. This appears to be a case of double default on the part of the respondent bank''s cashiers professional and trained to read the difference between the signatures. It is here that they appear to have failed. Deficiency in rendering service is writ large on the fact of it by the respondent by not comparing the signatures on the documents/instruments presented to them with regard of signatures kept by them. In the light of above discussion, we are unable to sustain the orders passed by the State Commission in two appeals filed before it, hence the set-aside order of the District Forum is restored. " The facts of the present case are almost identical with the facts of the case decided by the National Commission. We have already noticed that the disputed signature does not tally with the admitted signature of the complainant. It is visible even to the naked eye. It does not really need any expert to tell us that the signature had been forged. In the above circumstances, we have no alternative other than to confirm the order of the District Forum which we do. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.