T.P. RAJAKUMAR vs ICICI BANK

THIS action has come up for admission before us today. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Jothi representing learned Counsel M/s. King and Patridge, appearing for the complainant.

WE perused the averments in the complaint and also the documents filed alongwith it. From such perusal, the following factors are getting revealed : (1) The complainant, one Mr. Rajkumar, had opened a Savings Bank Account in January, 1998, in the Cenatoph Branch of the opposite party. He was stated to have complied with all the formalities as per the rules and regulations of the Bank while opening the said account. This apart, he had also left his office and residential addresses alongwith his phone numbers with the Bank. (2) On 17.9.1999, he received a statement from the Bank which was dated 6.9.1999 and from the statement so received, he was shocked to see that a huge sum of Rs. 3,00,300/- was debited to his account as if it was utilised for issuing a pay order for a like amount in favour of G.R. Thanga Maligai on 6.9.1999. (3) The complainant rushed to the Bank to enquire about the pay order. On perusal of the application made for the pay order, it was found that it was made on 4.9.1999 and the demand draft was issued on 6.9.1999. Though the Bank had sufficient time to check with him about the transaction, the Bank had failed and neglected to do so. The complainant had operated his account only in his individual capacity and whenever he wanted to withdraw cash, he had personally visited the Bank and drew the cash through ATM or cheques and as a matter of fact he had not withdrawn more than Rs. 20,000/- at a time. (4) The cheqe was presented by a stranger on 4.9.1999 drawn as "Pay Yourselves" for the issuance of the Demand Draft in favour of G.R. Thanga Maligai. The handwriting and signature in the application for the issue of the pay order as well as the cheque leaflet were not that of the complainant. (5) The cheque leaflet utilised for getting the pay order, it appears, had been stolen by a stranger and his signature has been forged. The officials of the Bank who were supposed to have taken adequate care in verifying the signature, had failed to do so, and therefore, it is this sort of an act on the part of the bank officials would tantamount to deficiency in service. Alleging the factors as above, the complainant knocked at the doors of this Commission praying for the reliefs as below : "The complainant, therefore, prays for an order directing the opposite parties herein- (1) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,00,300/-; (2) to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages for the consequent loss of interest and the non-productivity of the funds; (3) to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses; and (4) to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony."

The factors as above as culled out from the averments in the complaint and the documents filed alongwith it, we rather feel, would prima facie point out that a stranger had forged the signature of the complainant in the cheque leaflet belonging to him for getting a pay order of Rs. 3,00,300/- in favour of the G.R. Thanga Maligai. When we say this, we should not be mistaken that the complainant had made out a case of forgery against the opposite parties Bank officials. This sort of a prima facie statement we have made is to make it appear that this matter requires further probe and enquiry into the matter and nothing further. It appears, the opposite parties Bank officials did not take into account the extent of care required to be taken by them in a transaction like the present one involving the withdrawal of a huge sum of money for getting a pay order. In such circumstances, even assuming for arguments sake that there is some sort of deficiency in service on the part of the Bank officials, the question that arises for consideration on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is as to whether the jurisdiction of this Commission would get attracted by instituting the present action by way of a complaint against the opposite parties Bank officials.

A forged cheque is a nullity. It is a waste paper. The customer cannot be bound by it. Once it is proved that there is forgery, the customer is absolved of the liabilty under the law of the land. The forged cheque does not contain any mandate from the customer to the Bank to pay vide Canara Bank v. Canara Sales Enterprises, AIR 1987 SC 1603. During the course of enquiry, if the complainant is able to prove that the cheque leaf utilised in getting the pay order in the instant transaction is a forged one, it goes without saying that he is absolved from liability and the opposite parties Bank officials would be mulcted with liability for the refund of the said amount to the complainant.

THE complainant prayed for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of interest besides a compensation quantified in a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony. Even he is entitled to both, the amount that would have been awarded would be in minimal sum, not as the ones he had prayed for. We rather feel that both the things cannot go together. He can pray for either one of these two things. Assuming for arguments sake that even if he is entitled to for both the reliefs, he had not given details and other particulars how he was able to quantify the amount as had been prayed for by him. He has also prayed for the payment of Rs. 10,000/- by way of costs from the opposite parties. In the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act") there is practically no or nil expense on the part of the parties involve in litigation. Such being the case, we are at a loss to understand, how the complainant had prayed for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of expenses. We are of the view that the complainant had specifically prayed for the reliefs 2 to 4 just to escalate the claim in order to attract the jurisdiction of this Commission obviously for the reason that for such escalated claim, he is not bound to pay any Court-fee at all. The probability of the complainant escalating the claim to attract the jurisdiction of this Commission cannot at all be ruled out of consideration. To put it otherwise, the amount to which the complainant is entitled to refund, in case of proving forgery as alleged by him and also the amounts he had prayed for in 2 to 4 of the reliefs column even if granted, we rather feel, could not be quantified in an amount beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of a District Forum. For the reasons as above, the complaint as presented is returned with the direction to the complainant to represent the same before the competent District Forum of course after amending the necessary prayer column in the relevant paragraph within a month from today. The Registry is also directed to return the copy of the complaint and the documents filed alongwith that of course after getting the necessary and requisite endorsements from the complainant or his Counsel. Complaint disposed of.