CANARA BANK Vs. T PAPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE opposite party in C. O. P. No. 228/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: (a) The complainant, a retired teacher was operating her S. B. Account with the opposite party bank for over 16 years. On 14. 6. 2002 her husband went to opposite party bank and got entries in the pass book. She found that a sum of Rs. 40,400 had been wrongly debited in her pass book. She went and made inquiries with the bank officials. She was informed that a person by name Pandian submitted a requisition letter to the Manager fraudulently and received a cheque book as if the complainant had authorised him to receive the cheque book. Without verifying the signature of the complainant, the opposite party had given the cheque book and allowed him to withdraw Rs. 40,400 by receiving a cheque presented by him for the said amount. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 40,400 towards monetary loss, Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards cost.

(2.) THE opposite party filed a version contending inter alia as follows : The debit entry made in relation to the withdrawal in question was made on her mandate only as per the authority and with her knowledge. When inquiry was made with the opposite party about the withdrawal of the said amount, the opposite party verified the records and informed her that the withdrawal was effected only on the basis of a cheque dated 9. 5. 2002 issued by her. It was also informed that a cheque book was issued to her on the basis of a requisition dated 8. 5. 2002 through one Pandian. The opposite party had exercised due care and caution in the matter by verifying the signature of the complainant that has appeared both in the cheque requisition letter and the cheque leaf concerned and duly performed his duty with diligence and good faith. The opposite party also advised the complainant to prefer a police complaint if according to her, her signature was forged. The signature of the complainant in the requisition letter tallied with the specimen signature of the complainant available with the opposite party bank. There was no deficiency in service. Person who got the cheque book or the complainant was her duly authorised agent. The complainant should pursue her remedy before the Civil Court.

(3.) BEFORE the District Forum on the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A5 were marked while on the side of the opposite party Exs. B1 to B5 were marked.