BANK OF BARODA Vs. MEERA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 14.7.2004 passed by District Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi whereby the appellant Bank has been directed to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/ - with interest which was encashed by the drawee of the cheque without there being authorised signature of the drawee. Admittedly, the signature of the drawer on the record of the appellant Bank in the account card were in English language whereas the cheque in question bearing No.295276 bore the signature in Hindi language. The drawer of the cheque was none but the sister -in -law of the drawee. There was some disputes between the respondent and her sister -in -law Ms. Neetu Gupta which landed them up in the Court of Law. Settlement was arrived at in terms that a sum of Rs.50,000/ - would be paid to Ms. Neetu Gupta by the respondent and in pursuance thereof the impugned cheque was issued.

(2.) STRANGELY , the appellant had taken the plea that the payment was made on receiving the telephonic instruction from the respondent that the cheque though bore the signatures in Hindi but was issued by her in favour of her sister -in -law towards the full and final settlement of their dispute arrived at in the Court.

(3.) IT is common knowledge that the banks in normal course of their business are very careful and vigilant while enchashing the cheques particularly for such a heavy amount. The officials not only tally the signatures minutely but wherever there is lurking doubt they refrain from enchashing the cheques lest it may land them in difficulty as such a lapse on the part of the employee of the Bank not only invites departmental action but sometimes it attracts criminal liability also. Whatever may be the circumstance under which the appellant Bank encashed the cheque, the fact remains that the cheque in question bore the signatures in Hindi language whereas in the account card of the Bank the specimen signatures of the respondent were in English language. It is not understandable as to how the official of appellant Bank encashed the cheque merely on telephonic instruction. It is a sheer case of negligence and deficiency in service. The District Forum has refrained granting compensation and has only confined the order for refund of Rs.50,000/ - which illegally and unauthorisedly was paid by the appellant on the basis of cheque which did not bear the signatures of the drawer. However the appeal being completely devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in limine.