PRAKASH R SHENAI Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has alleged negligence in the service of opposite party. Admittedly, the complainant is having account with opposite party in its branch at Ghatkopar bearing Account No. 25 in the name of `Sterling Engineering Company. According to complainant his 5 cheques mentioned in para 4 of the complaint were forged and Rs. 1,44,000 were withdrawn from his aforesaid account on the basis of 5 forged cheques. The complainant took up the matter with the opposite parties but to no effect. Despite complainants correspondence, the opposite party denied its liability vide their letter dated 26th February, 1990. The complainant therefore, has filed this complaint, claiming the loss of Rs. 1,44,000/- caused to him with 18% interest per annum.

(2.) In response to the notice issued by this Commission, under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, opposite parties neither filed its written version nor appeared on the date of hearing i.e. on 23rd September, 1992 and therefore, this Commision proceeded ex parte against the opposite party. However, on 15th October, 1992 when this complaint was being heard, Shri S.R. Kadam Advocate for the opposite party, joined that hearing and we also heard his arguments.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that despite the receipt of the notice of this Commission, the opposite party did not bother to take the cognizance of the complaint and did not file any written version or attended the hearing of the complaint fixed on 24th September, 1992. All of a sudden on 13th October, 1992, the opposite party sent a letter requesting to place this complaint on board on 15-10-1992 for urgent arguments for setting aside the exparte order passed by this Commission on 23rd September, 1992. The said letter was not accompanied with any request for setting aside the exparte order duly supported by affidavit for the reasons of its absence on 23rd September, 1992. We, therefore, heard both the parties. The only point that arises for our consideration in this complaint is as to whether there was deficiency in the service of the opposite party in deriliction to the complainant. Our answer to the issue is in affirmative for the following reasons. The complainant has repeatedly pointed out to the opposite party that his 5 cheques were forged and that he has been put to a loss of Rs. 1,44,000/- as a result of forgery committed by its employee. The opposite party instead of investigating the grievance of the complainant tried to justify the passing of cheques after due verfication of the specimen signature of the complainant from the banks record. When the complainant disputed his signature on the 5 cheques, it was the duty of the bank to re-verify the signature and refer the matter to the handwriting expert for his opinion, so as to find out the truth. On the contrary we find that opposite party tried to cover the lapse committed by their own employee and passed the forged cheques. We find that the attitude of the opposite party has been of non-co-operation with the complainant for purposes of finding out the truth and to understand his complaint properly. We therefore, of the view that as a result of forgery, the complainants amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- has been alleged to be embezzled by the opposite party which constitute deficiency in its service. We also find in the aforesaid act, the employee of the Bank, who was in charge of passing the cheques has by his negligent act caused a loss to the complainant by passing the forged cheques. Thus the complainant has been put to a loss of Rs. 1,44,000/-, embezzlement of his amount to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/-. In such a situation the principle governing on the vicarious liablility of an employer for the loss caused to a customer through the wrongful act of its employee is applicable. The Supreme Court in the case of (State Bank of India v. Shyamadevi) A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1263 on the basis of vicarious liability held the employer liable for the loss caused to a customer through the wrongful acts of its employee or agent.