M.S. THAHIR vs Indian Overseas Bank

THE complainant in O.P. No. 286/99 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant. His case against the respondent/opposite party was as follows: He had a current account with the opposite party. He had sufficient funds in the account. Yet, the opposite party dishonoured the cheques issued by the complainant on various dates, alleging that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the complainant. On inquiry the complainant came to know that the counterfoils issued to the complainant and the records kept by the opposite party bank did not tally. On inquiry the complainant came to know that the employees of the opposite party bank, by name Kannan and Govindaswamy had done the mischief by falsifying the accounts of the bank. Even though a complaint was lodged with the Crime Branch and the complainant also approached Banking Ombudsmen, the opposite party did not make good the loss sustained by the complainant. THE act of the opposite party bank in not reimbursing the loss sustained by the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint for reimbursement of Rs. 1,91,000 with interest and for compensation and costs.

THE version by the respondent/opposite party was as follows: THE complainant preferred a complaint in respect of the same allegation before the Banking Ombudsmen and the same was dismissed after an elaborate hearing. THE present complaint was not maintainable. THE cheques issued by the complainant were not honoured for want of sufficient funds in his account. On the complaint from the complainant alleging fraud against the staff of the opposite party branch action was initiated against the staff. A police complaint was also filed against the staff of the opposite party, Kannan and Govindaswamy. THEy were arrested along with the employee of the complainant, namely Abraham @ Karunagaran. Abraham along with the opposite party staff Kannan and Govindaswamy committed fraud in the bank records. Criminal case was pending against them. Once cash was paid, the receipt had to be acknowledged by the bank''s authorized officials and the cashier. THE counterfoils were not valid unless signed by an authorized official of the bank in addition to the cashier''s signature and the counterfoils produced by the complainant did not bear the signature of the authorized official of the bank. THE complainant himself was negligent and misappropriation had occurred on account of this. THEre was no deficiency in service. On the side of the complainant, Ex. A1 to Ex. A17 were marked and on the side of the opposite party, no documents were produced.

The District Forum found that it was all the mischief of the complainant''s staff Abraham @ Karunagaran that the bank was not at fault, that so far as Kannan and Govindaswamy were concerned, the bank had taken action against them, that there was no deficiency in service. So holding the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

IT is as against that, the present appeal has been filed. From what is stated above it would be clear that the complainant''s staff Abraham had committed the fraud. Whenever the complainant gave money for deposit in the Bank, he should have misappropriated a portion and concocted a counterfoil so as to make it appear that whatever money was given to him had been deposited in the Bank. But the counterfoils tell another story. Apparently, the said Abraham had colluded with the Bank employees Kannan and Govindaswamy and the three some had manipulated the accounts and made it appear that the entire amount had been deposited in the Bank. There was a fraud committed and that in the police complaint given by the complainant he had made it very clear that his employee Abraham had not deposited the entire amount given by him in the Bank account, but deposited only a lesser amount and thus committed fraud in collusion with the employees of the Bank. It is seen that for the fraud committed by the Bank staff, action had been taken by the Bank and they were suspended under the proceedings initiated.

FROM the foregoing, it would be clear that there was no deficiency in service that the entire problem of the complainant had been due to his own employee Abraham @ Karunagaran, that by no stretch of imagination can the Bank be held responsible for what had happened. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.