M S THAHIR Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.