VIJAYA BANK Vs. ARYA CENTRAL TRANSPORT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON account of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Bank inasmuch as it did not take due diligence in clearing as many as five cheques with forged signatures of the respondent and without establishing the knowledge of the respondent as to the forgery of the cheques, has been directed vide impugned order dated 27.8.1998 passed by the District Forum to pay Rs. 1,40,000/ - towards the withdrawal amount of five cheques. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal.

(2.) RELEVANT facts stated below are self explanatory to demonstrate the lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant Bank and the conspiracy of the appellant Bank in making unauthorised withdrawal from the account of the respondent. Respondent has current account No. 15 with the appellant Bank, which was being operated through its cashier Sh. Bansal. As many as five cheques bearing No. 157502 dated 2.8.1993 amounting to Rs. 20,000, cheque No. 157503 dated 3.8.1993 amounting to Rs. 30,000, cheque No. 157504 dated 4.8.1993 amounting to Rs. 30,000, cheque No. 157506 dated 6.8.1993 amounting to Rs. 30,000 and cheque No. 157508 dated 7.8.1993 amounting to Rs. 30,000 in all Rs. 1,40,000 were cleared by the appellant Bank. It boggles our mind as to why the concerned officer of the Bank did not doubt the veracity of the cheques which were issued on consecutive dates viz., 3.8.1993, 4.8.1993, 6.8.1993 and 7.8.1993 and for the same amount of Rs. 30,000 barring one which was Rs. 20,000 if a person would be needing every day Rs. 30,000. This circumstance in itself suggests conspiracy and fraud.

(3.) HONBLE Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank v. Canara Sales Corporation & Others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1603, has taken the view that 'whenever the cheque purporting to by a customer is presented before a Bank, it carries a mandate to the Bank to pay and if cheque is forged there is no such mandate. Bank can escape liability only if it can establish knowledge to the customer of the forgery in the cheques. Inaction for a continuously long period cannot be itself affords satisfactory grounds for the Bank to escape the liability'.