SHANTA VISHNU GUDEKAR (DECEASED) RESIDENCE AT POST WAVANJE, TAHASIL PANVEL RAIGAD Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. STATION ROAD BRANCH THANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 29.04.2010, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 604/2008, Bank of Maharashtra v. Smt. Shanta Vishnu Gudekar (deceased) through her legal heirs and Ors. , vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 21.02.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane, in Consumer Complaint No. 132/2007, partly allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Shanta Vishnu Gudekar stated in her consumer complaint before the District Forum that she had two Savings Bank accounts bearing no. 014059 and 700533 with the OP Bank. It was alleged that the respondents no. 2 to 4/OPs 2 to 4 had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1,01,400/- from the Bank account no. 014059, taking advantage of her old age and physical condition and making fake signatures. They had also stolen the letter pad and stamp of the respondent no. 5, doctor and made bogus statements. Her grandson Sunil Chavan had also withdrawn an amount of Rs. 41,000/- on various occasions from the second account no. 700533 by making false signatures. The Bank had shown deficiency in service by permitting the said withdrawals without verifying her signatures. It was the duty of the Bank to have verified the medical certificates submitted by the OPs. It is also stated in the complaint that she filed complaint with the police against the respondents no. 2 to 4 where they admitted that they had withdrawn the amount by making false signatures of the complainant. They also promised to return the said amount within three months, but the same was not returned. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking a total sum of Rs. 2,16,608/- from the OPs with 17% interest and also compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony etc.

(3.) In their reply before the District Forum, the OP Bank stated that the complainant was attending the Bank along with her nearest relative/grandson and was tendered a withdrawal slip signed by her after necessary verification and interrogation. The payments in question were made to the grandson of the complainant, Sunil Chavan as per her authorisation and certified and confirmed by the complainants physician and surgeon Dr. M.S. Thakkar. All the payments were made on the strength of original documents in the normal routine course of Banking business after taking due precautions and care. The Bank also stated that the complainant had lodged complaint with the local police against the OPs 2 to 4 regarding misappropriation of money and theft in her house. The said accused had admitted their guilt on a stamp paper and undertook to return the amount within three months. Under the circumstances, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank towards the complainant. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, partly allowed their claim vide their order dated 21.02.2008 and directed the OPs to return amount of Rs. 1,42,400/- to the complainant along with 9% interest and a further compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP, Bank of Maharashtra filed appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 29.04.2010 and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. It is against this order that the present Revision Petition has been made before this Commission.