DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 604/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
05.11.2014 12.11.2014 16.08.2022
Complainant/s:- | SRI MADHUSUDAN ROY, Aged about 37 years S/o Sri Amarendra Nath Roy permanently residing at, Natunpally, Post Office – Maslandapur, Police Statiion – Habra, PIN – 743289, District North 24 Parganas, Presently residing at Executive Engineer Building Division, District – Dumka, Jharkhand. = Vs = |
Opposite Party/s:- | - STATE BANK OF INDIA, Local head office at Samridhi Bhawan, 1, Strand Road, Kolkata - 700001
|
| - THE BRANCH MAMNAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, Barasat Branch, Post Office & Police Station – Barasat, Kolkata – 700124, District North 24 Parganas.
|
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
This is a case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The Complainant stated that the Complainant has one Savings Account before the branch of Opposite Party No. 2, State Bank of India, Barasat, Account No. 11216984589. On 23/06/2014 during up-dating the Pass Book Complainant came to know that on 24/05/2014 the said Savings Account was debited with an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- withdrawn through withdrawal slip without the Pass Book and without knowledge, signature and authorization of the Complainant. After knowing about the matter the Complainant informed the Branch Manager / Opposite Party No. 2 about the matter and the Complainant personally met with Opposite Party No. 2 on 24/06/2014 and 25/06/2014 and requested to enquire into the matter.
The Opposite Party No. 2 after a few days delivered letter dated 14/07/2014 to the Complainant stating that the signature on the withdrawal slip / form was genuine and the money was withdrawn by the Complainant. The Complainant stated that he was an officer of central government and was posted at Jharkhand on duty at the relevant time and the Complainant never put his signature in the withdrawal form and was not present at that relevant time. The Complainant asked for all the documents from the Opposite Party No. 2 who did not supply the same. The Complainant also lodged a Police Complaint. Inspite of several requests and demand the Opposite Party failed and neglected to do anything for redressal of the grievances of the Complainant. The Complainant stated that the Opposite Parties committed gross negligence in rendering service to the Complainant and it was a case of deficiency of service since the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was improperly withdrawn from the Savings Account of the Complainant without his knowledge, signature and authorization. Hence, the Complainant filed this case for a direction to the Opposite Parties / Bank to pay back the fraudulently withdrawn amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- from the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant along with interest and compensation.
The Opposite Parties contested the case by filing Written Version denying the allegations of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties stated that on 24/06/2014 the Complainant informed by an application that his Account No. 11216984589 was debited with Rs. 2,40,000/- on 24/05/2014 without his knowledge and authorization.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./-
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 604/2014
The Chief Manager of the Opposite Party No. 2 then referred the matter to appropriate authority for investigation and recommended that the case was required to be referred to hand writing expert and one hand writing expert Sri Purushottam Chatterjee submitted his report clearly stating that the writer of the signatures appearing on specimen signature, withdrawal slips are that of the signatures of Madhusudan Roy (Complainant) appearing in the withdrawal slip dated 24/05/2014 for Rs. 2,40,000/-. Thereafter, the Chief Manager of Opposite Party No. 2 informed the Complainant on 14/07/2014 that the alleged withdrawal was genuine and was made by the Complainant.
The Opposite Party stated that this case was filed with malafide motive and the allegations were all false and baseless. The Opposite Parties contended that there was neither any deficiency nor negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 have rendered all possible help to the Complainant and therefore the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Hence, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the case.
From the contentions of the parties it appears that the points for consideration in this case are whether the case is maintainable or not and whether the signatures in the alleged withdrawal slip is that of the Complainant or not and whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for in this case.
Decisions with Reasons:-
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that withdrawal of Rs. 2,40,000/- was made without the knowledge and signature of the Complainant and it was reported to the Opposite Party / Bank but the Opposite Party / Bank did not pay back the amount to the Complainant. He submitted that as per report of the hand writing expert appointed by this forum, the hand writing expert from the Qustioned Document Examination Bureau, Government of West Bengal, C.I.D., West Bengal, Bhabani Bhawan, (New Building), Alipore, Kolkata – 700027 clearly and categorically gave opinion that the person who wrote the specimen signatures did not write the disputed signatures. He submitted that as per hand writing expert’s opinion the Complainant has clearly proved his case that he did not sign in the disputed withdrawal slip and the amount was withdrawn without his knowledge and consent and therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the decree as prayed for.
None appeared to argue the case on behalf of the Opposite Party / Bank at the stage of argument of the case.
Considering the contentions of the parties as per written complaint and the written version the main dispute in this case is whether the Complainant signed in the disputed withdrawal slip or not. The Complainant alleged that the signatures in the disputed withdrawal slip was not his signatures and the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was withdrawn without his knowledge and consent. On the other hand the Opposite Party / Bank contended that as per their investigation and their appointed hand writing expert report the signatures in the disputed withdrawal slip was the signature of the Complainant and therefore the amount was withdrawn by Complainant.
But considering the report of the independent hand writing expert appointed by this forum that is hand writing expert of Qustioned Document Examination Bureau, Government of West Bengal, C.I.D., West Bengal in questioned documents case No. 378/2019. It is found that the opinion of the hand writing expert is that the person who wrote the specimen signatures did not write the disputes signatures. The hand writing expert have carefully and thoroughly examined and compared all the documents as per prescribed procedures with the help of various scientific appliances and came to his conclusion.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./-
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 604/2014
This hand writing expert report is from an independent expert and the Opposite Party / Bank after submission of the report did not contest the report or did not contradict opinions by any other evidence. Therefore, the report was accepted. Since the independent hand writing expert from the Government of West Bengal has clearly pointed out that the signatures in the disputed withdrawal slip is not the signatures of the Complainant, it is found that the Complainant has proved his case that the signatures in the alleged disputed withdrawal slip are not the signatures of the Complainant. Accordingly it is to be found that the Complainant has proved his case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Hence,
It is Ordered:-
That the case being No. C.C. / 604 /2014 be and the same is decreed on contest against the Opposite Parties.
The Opposite Parties are directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- along with Savings Bank interest there on from the date of withdrawal till payment of the same to the Complainant within 02 (two) months from this date failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the decree according to law. The Opposite Parties are also liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President President
Member
