T P RAJAKUMAR Vs. ICICI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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cash, he had personally visited the Bank and drew the cash through ATM or cheques and as a matter of fact he had not withdrawn more than Rs.20,000/- at a time.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.

(3.) 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. "