C.C. No. 26/2007



1. Tmt. P. Jayalakshmi,

W/o. Thirumavalavan,

1086, Paramathi Salai,

Namakkal.



2. Tamil Nadu Beneficiary Association

by its Secretary Thiru K. Subrayan,

40-B1, Senthamangalam Salai,

Namakkal. .. Complainants.



.Vs.



1. The Postal Superintendent

Namakkal Division,

Ravi Plaza Building,

Trichy Road,

Namakkal.



2. The Post Master

Namakkal Head Post Office,

Namakkal. ..Opposite Parties.





This complaint coming on for final hearing before us on 11.11.2009 in the presence of Thiru K. Subrayan, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Beneficiary Association and of Thiru V.K. Arivazhagan, Advocate for the opposite parties and after hearing of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following order:
ORDER

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The crux of the complaint is:-

The 1st complainant is the aggrieved consumer and the 2nd complainant is the voluntary consumer organization. The 1st complainant on 08.09.2004 opened a monthly income account bearing No.56072 and he

deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the 2nd opposite party. The monthly interest for the said amount is Rs.133/-. The 1st complainant received interest only for 3 months. The interest for the period from 15.01.2005 to 17.05.2006 amounting to Rs.2,321/- was received by some third parties. The 1st complainant has not withdrawn the monthly interest and allowed the same to be accumulated in his account and as such he has not signed in any withdrawal slips for the above stated period. The monthly interest for the above said period was withdrawn by some 3rd parties. The 1st complainant’s account was closed on 17.05.2006 and deposit amount of Rs.19,600/- after deducting Rs.400/- was issued and closed. The 1st complainant has submitted application under Right to Information Act and has obtained the said details from the opposite parties. The 1st complainant’s agent had received the books for making entry in the pass book and he had committed suicide and hence the 1st complainant was not able to produce the pass book. The 1st complainant has not received either the principal or interest, except for the 3 months stated above. The complainants alleges deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and has lodged this complaint to pay the deposit amount along with accumulated interest to him, compensation, cost etc. 2. The crux of the opposite parties written version are:-

The opposite parties contends that the allegations made in the complaint are all not true and correct. The complainant has to prove the averment that withdrawals were not made by her and the signatures in the withdrawal slips or not her. The complainant has received all the payments. If there is any cheating then the complainant has to approach the criminal court. There is no deficiency in service on their part hence the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.

3. The complainant to prove his case has filed proof affidavit along with 5 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The opposite party No.1 has filed proof affidavit without any documents.

4. The point for consideration is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

Opposite Parties and if so to what relief the Complainant is

entitled for?



5. POINT:- The 1st Complainant is the aggrieved consumer and the 2nd complainant is the voluntary consumer organization. The 1st

complainant on 08.09.2004 opened a monthly income account bearing No.56072 and he deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the 2nd opposite party. The monthly interest for the said amount is Rs.133/-. All these facts are not disputed by the opposite parties. The 1st complainant states that she has received interest only for 3 months and the interest for the period from 15.01.2005 to 17.05.2006 amounting to Rs.2,321/- was received by some third parties. The 1st complainant has not withdrawn the monthly interest and allowed the same to be accumulated in his account and as such he has not signed in any withdrawal slips for the above stated period. But, the opposite parties contend that the complainant herself had received all the payments. The opposite parties further contends that the complainant has to prove the averment that withdrawals were not made by her and the signatures in the withdrawal slips or not her. The 1st complainant has produced and placed before us the copy withdrawal form alleged to have been signed by him as Ex.A3. The 1st complainant’s agent had received the pass book and later he had committed suicide hence copies of transaction has been obtained under the RTI Act. On perusal of the alleged signature of the 1st complainant in Ex.A3and the signatures made by her in the complaint it can be clearly noticed by the bare/naked eye, that both the signatures completely differ. On going through the averments made in the complaint in can be presumed that the 1st complainant was not physically present at the time of the alleged withdrawals. In this circumstances the 2nd opposite party ought to have verified the signatures in the withdrawal slip along with the specimen signature available with them.

6. Regarding Identification of the depositor, Rule 7 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules – 1981 read as follows:-

“Identification of a depositor at the time of withdrawal under rule 6 shall ordinarily be made by verification of his signature appearing on the record in the post office Savings Bank and in cases where identification cannot be done as aforesaid, it may be done on the basis of identity card, if any, issued to him by the post office or in such other manner as may be prescribed.”

The complainants alleges that she had not signed the withdrawal slips and hence there is no question she personally going to the 2nd opposite party’s office at the time of the alleged withdrawal as such the



2nd opposite party ought to have properly identified the depositor at the time of withdrawal. The negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party has resulted in the alleged withdrawals. The 2nd opposite party was negligent in his duties. Had he verified the signatures the wrongful withdrawal could have been avoided. The opposite parties employees who are handling the savings account ought to have a reasonable degree of intelligence and skill required of a person working in a bank or post office. The 2nd opposite party has failed to be diligent and had allowed the withdrawal without verifying the signatures. The 2nd opposite party is squarely liable for the withdrawals made with forged signatures and he cannot escape the liability. The opposite parties on getting knowledge about the alleged withdrawal of amount by forged signatures ought to have launched a full fledged enquiry. But, no such enquiry has been ordered and the opposite parties have simply washed off their hands by stating that the money was withdrawn by the complainant. It is surprising as to how and on what basis the opposite parties came to such a conclusion without any enquiry, has not been explained.

The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of

N. Venkanna

Vs.

Andhra Bank

in Revision Petition No.1990 of 1999 had made it clear that banks had a duty to meticulously cross check the signature on a cheque or a withdrawal slip. It also clarified that banks cannot escape liability by claiming that they did not have an ultraviolet ray lamp for the purpose. Another important point that it made was that banks cannot escape liability by making out a case of contributory negligence on the part of the consumer. In this case, Rs.34,000/- had disappeared from the account of the complainant.

The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of

Shankar Bhatt

Vs.

Punjab and Sind Bank

in OP No.98 of 2002 where the apex consumer court said those who worked in banks ought to have a reasonable degree of intelligence and skill



required of a person working in a bank. Failure to exhibit that skill constituted negligence and banks had to pay for the consequences of such negligence. In this case, a 72-year-old senior citizen’s entire sagvings of Rs.15 lakh had been transferred to someone else’s account in the bank, using a forged signature. The court ordered the bank to pay back the money with 12% interest and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

In Bhagwan Das Vs. Creet (1903) 31 Cal.249 it was held: “The bankers obligation is to honour his customers cheque. To that end he is bound to know his customers handwriting. If in any way he is deceived without the instrumentality of his customer, he must himself abide the loss”

In the case of

L. Pirbhu Dayal

Vs.

Jwala Bank

reported in AIR 1958 All. 374, the money was paid by the bank on presentation of a forged cheque (withdrawal form as is the case in the present matter), the bank was held liable to pay for the loss suffered.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint and in view of the above discussion and decisions we have no hesitation to hold the act of the opposite parties as deficiency in service. The act of the opposite parties would have definitely resulted in mental agony to the 1st complainant and as such she is entitled for compensation on this account.

6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the 1st complainant Rs.21,921/- (Rs.19,600/- being the amount deposited and Rs.2,321/- being the accumulated monthly interest) along with interest applicable for post office savings bank account from the date of maturity till the date of actual payment. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,500/- as cost of this complaint. Time for payment one month from the date of this order.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum, this the 26th day of November,2009.