PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. ARVIND SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has a Savings Bank Account No. 37598 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 17C, Chandigarh. On 14.11.96 when his wife went to the Bank and collected upto date entries in the pass book she noticed that on 6.11.96 there were two with -drawls; one of Rs. 30,000/ - and another of Rs. 4,000/ - but in reality these were never made by her husband. This irregularity was brought to the notice of her husband who approached the appellants and was told that the withdrawal of Rs. 4,000/ - was made on a loose withdrawal slip and similarly second withdrawal of Rs. 30,000/ - was made within 1 or 1 1/2 hours of the first withdrawal on a loose cheque bearing No. 44410, the same day. It was alleged that on account of negligence/connivance of the Bank employees, the aforesaid two withdrawals were made. On a complaint instituted by him the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, ordered on

(2.) 5.1997 that the Bank shall make credit entries of the aforesaid two sum because the Forum came to the conclusion that the debit entries were made on the basis of forged documents. Besides this the Bank was ordered to pay interest @18% per annum from the date the disputed debit entries were made and the Bank was also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - to the complainant on account of harassment and mental agony. The costs were also awarded to the tune of Rs. 2,000/ -. Besides this the Forum also ordered that the matter should also be brought to the notice of the local police for appropriate action and that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. Aggrieved against it, the respondents have attempted the present appeal. 2. In this case though the complainant possessed a chequebook and not only had been a resident of Chandigarh but had been working in the neighbourhood of the Bank itself, yet two fake withdrawals were fastened on him. The Bank was able to collect sufficient evidence of the Expert that signatures on the withdrawal slip/ loose cheque were fabricated and not genuine. Besides this during the course of arguments it was brought to our notice that there is a specific column printed on each withdrawal slip/form that passbook must accompany this order form. This goes to show that if the withdrawal is made through a regular chequebook, it has much more veracity. But if it is to be made with the help of a withdrawal slip/form the Bank requires that the customer should bring the passbook also. If the passbook is also brought it would show genuineness of the demand made by or on behalf of the depositor. The fact that all these essential requirements were ignored established not only deficiency but also mala fide intention, which one or two persons had to cheat the customer as well as the Bank. For reasons best known to the appellants they had been protecting the defaulters.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant while supporting the plea of indemnity bond drew our attention to H. Sivaswamy v. Branch Manager Canara Bank & Another, 1996 (1) CPR 42 and in the aforesaid case the customer applied for a loan of Rs. 95,000/ - against his own Fixed Deposit of Rs. 1,80,000/ -. However, at the time the loan was granted the sum was deposited to the account of some other customer, this was found to be incidental and thus the facts and circumstances of the case now in hand are distinguishable. In the aforesaid case also no indemnity bond was furnished. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to Harbhajan Singh v. Dayanand Medical College & Another, 1994 (1) CPR 518, where the word 'free' was allegedly added later on, the Punjab Commission held that where the word 'free' was added it involved complicated question of fact and the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Commission. This authority has no relevancy with the present case.