The complainant files hazira through Ld. Advocate. The case is taken up for admission hearing. Heard Ld. Advocate at length. Considered.
The complainant being assured to be extended with cash-credit facilities from UCO Bank, issued three cheques bearing Nos. 16372, 16373 and 16375 of which former two were for Rs. 100/- and Rs. 200/- respectively duly executed by him with his seal and the third one was neither signed by him nor any seal impression was there. He, on enquiry, came to know that Rs. 3,35,000/- has been withdrawn from his CC A/c No. 544 maintained at Central Bank of India Balurghat Branch against said cheque No. 16375. He knocked at the Bank and urged his grievances that said cheque was neither signed by him nor genuine seal was there, but to no effect.
He then submitted a complaint narrating entire facts since registered as Balurghat PS Case No. 95/2010 dt. 4.3.2010 u/s 468/471/420 IPC which after investigation ended in charge sheet.
In the meantime, he knocked at the door of the Banking Ombudsman vide complaint No. 201112005001486 which after detailed hearing was closed in terms of Clause 13(C) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. Hence, the complaint.
Having appreciated the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed before us, we find that –
- the alleged deficiency in service by the OP Bank has not been particularized by specific allegation and pleading.
- The stated charge sheet in Police Case referred to above has not been made available to us to see whether at all any charge sheet has been submitted and if so, against whom it was submitted and whether the offender/ offenders could be arrested or not.
- The petition of complaint is conspicuously silent as to whom the complainant handed over the cheques, though in the FIR stated to have been submitted at the PS, the complainant stated that he handed over the cheque along with some other documents to one Mr. Bijoy Sharma. It appears extremely strange and unbelievable that a businessman like the complainant aspiring for another CC A/c in another Bank would hand over a blank cheque to a stranger without ascertaining and verifying his detailed whereabouts, specially when he is already holder of a CC A/c in a bank. There is no reason why the complainant did not name said Mr. Sharma in the instant petition of complaint specially when it was within his knowledge to whom he handed over the cheque. The reason is best known to him and not disclosed to the Forum.
Even if we assume that the Police Case initiated by the complainant ended in charge sheet then it must be against specific person or persons, either arrested or showing one or more of them absconders. If we assume that the main offender who alleged to have forged the signature and seal of the complainant has been arrested then there could be scope for
comparison of his handwriting with that of the complainant kept as specimen signature in the bank and variation, if any, could be detected.
Unless such variation is ascertained and judicially proved and declared, then and then only the question of negligence on the part of the bank could arise. If the charge sheet is against the absconders, then such a situation is yet to come till said offender or offenders is/are arrested. Therefore, it is premature stage to draw an inference that there has been any negligence on the part of the Bank.
Therefore, we find that there is not only absence of allegation about deficiency in rendering service by the OP Bank but also the stage is premature for such type of inference. There is also no cause of action for filing the case. That being the position, the petition of complaint is not entertainable for admission and is accordingly dismissed.
